Opinion ID: 781622
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Public Service Insurance Policy

Text: 9 It was not until January 10, 1995 — more than six months after the underlying tort action was commenced and about five months after South Norwalk filed for bankruptcy — that Public Service, a New York corporation, issued an insurance policy to Rattlesnake, naming South Norwalk as an additional insured. The policy defined the policy period as 12/01/94 to 12/01/95 12:01 a.m. The policy further provided that it applied to bodily injury or property damage only if the bodily injury or property damage occurred during the policy period. The policy defined bodily injury as bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person and property damage as [p]hysical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property. Finally, South Norwalk was required to notify Public Service as soon as practicable of any occurrence that might result in a claim or of any claim or suit, and immediately to send copies of any demands, notices, summonses, or legal papers received in connection with a claim or lawsuit. 10 IV. The Underlying Litigation Progresses and Rattlesnake Notifies Public Service of the Underlying Tort Action 11 On January 23, 1995, the law firm of Gildea & Stevens, which had been retained by another Rattlensake insurer, Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, 3 filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Rattlesnake and Opper. On March 23, attorney Thomas E. Stevens of Gildea & Stevens filed an amended answer and special defense on behalf of Rattlesnake and Opper. The following month, Peck made an offer to Rattlesnake, agreeing to accept $75,000 in full settlement of her claims. The offer was rejected. 12 By letter dated September 8, 1995, attorney Eugene E. Cedarbaum of Goldstein and Peck, requested that Ronald Fitelson, Rattlesnake's insurance broker, notify Public Service of the underlying tort action. Four days later, Fitelson faxed to Public Service a Loss Notice and the Summons, which separately listed each defendant in the underlying action. Fitelson also instructed Public Service to contact attorney Cedarbaum. On September 14, Daniel Jaconetti, the head of litigation at Public Service, set up a claims file and filled out a Claims Division Transaction Sheet. The following day, he opened a claims file in which he made handwritten notes about the claims alleged in Peck's complaint, and assigned the file to insurance adjuster Barry Blecher. As to the Ninth and Tenth Counts of the complaint, which alleged negligence per se and negligent infliction of emotional distress against South Norwalk, Jaconetti wrote Possibly Depending upon lease Agr. and if Co- &#916; is ADD'l. INSD. on Policy. Jaconetti also wrote Has Co- &#916; Sought Def. + Indem. From Insd? and Has Anyone Answered For Co- &#916; Yet? 13 On September 29, attorney Cedarbaum forwarded a copy of Peck's August 1994 Revised Complaint to Public Service. On October 5, Blecher faxed a two-page document to Cederbaum, asking him to identify South Norwalk and whether it was the landlord of the property leased by Rattlesnake. A week later, Blecher sent another letter to attorney Cederbaum confirming receipt of the original summons and complaint, the Revised Complaint, and explaining that he needed a copy of the lease to help Public Service determine its position regarding the availability of coverage. On October 20 attorney Cederbaum sent Blecher copies of various papers pertaining to the litigation, and indicated that he would soon send a copy of the lease. Additionally, Cederbaum informed Blecher that [t]he premises on which the restaurant is located is rented from South Norwalk and that Peck's deposition was scheduled for October 26. 14 In early November, Public Service received a copy of the lease agreement. On November 28, Public Service sent a letter to Rattlesnake denying insurance coverage to Rattlesnake on the grounds that (1) the date of the loss was October 1992, prior to the 1994 effective date of the policy; (2) notice of the claim was not timely provided by Rattlesnake (over a year after service of the complaint); and (3) intentional acts were excluded from the policy's coverage. No disclaimer of coverage was ever sent to South Norwalk, and South Norwalk was not referred to in the letter. 15