Court Opinion

ID: 9960626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 17:12:30.642057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:41.649177
License: Public Domain

Cid v Kinsale Capital Group, Inc. (2024 NY Slip Op 02029)

Cid v Kinsale Capital Group, Inc.

2024 NY Slip Op 02029

Decided on April 16, 2024

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: April 16, 2024

Before: Kern, J.P., Singh, Scarpulla, Mendez, Higgitt, JJ. 

Index No. 151724/19 Appeal No. 2072 Case No. 2023-04386 

[*1]Jhon Cid, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vKinsale Capital Group, Inc., Also Known as Kinsale Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent.

Ronald P. Hart, P.C., New York (Ronald P. Hart of counsel), for appellant.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Patrick J. Lawless of counsel), for respondent.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (James E. D'Auguste, J.), entered March 3, 2023, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant was obligated to provide a defense and indemnification in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that defendant was not obligated to provide a defense and indemnification in the underlying personal injury action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The court properly declined to find that defendant Kinsale Insurance Company had a duty to defend or indemnify based on the "assault and battery" exclusion in the policy issued to La Chimosa a/k/a Cliff New York, a bar and restaurant. The complaint's negligence allegations could not survive because those claims are deemed to have arisen from the assault and are thus subject to the assault and battery exclusion (see Metalios v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y ., 77 AD3 471, 472 [1st Dept 2010]; see also Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v Creative Hous ., 88 NY2d 347, 353 [1996]; Tonoga, Inc. v New Hampshire Ins. Co ., 201 AD3 1091, 1093-1094 [3d Dept 2022]).
We modify solely to declare in favor of defendant (see Lanza v Wagner , 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], cert denied  371 US 901 [1962]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: April 16, 2024