Court Opinion

ID: 5787513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 18:03:13.962264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:09.086623
License: Public Domain

Defendant excess insurer issued a follow-form policy, which incorporated the terms and conditions of an underlying $1 million general liability insurance policy to the extent not contradicted by the excess policy’s express terms (see Vigilant Ins. Co. v Bear Stearns Cos., Inc., 10 NY3d 170, 177 [2008]). Here, the underlying policy provided that additional insureds, such as plaintiffs, would be covered up to the lesser of the policy limits or the amount required by their trade contracts with the insured. There is no doubt that plaintiffs were additional insureds (Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v Great Am. Ins. Co., 53 *611AD3d 140, 146-147 [2008]). Nor was there any conflict between the excess policy terms and the blanket additional insured rider in the underlying policy. As such, the trade contract limitation was incorporated into the excess policy (see id.). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Sweeny, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.