Opinion
October 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Angela Mazzarelli, J.).
Plaintiff insurer's subrogor Chipp of New York leased space in a building from defendant. The lease between the parties required Chipp to obtain insurance for the premises covering defendant against liability. Chipp obtained a commercial general liability policy from plaintiff Royal which listed defendant as an additional insured.
There was water damage to Chipp's place of business, which plaintiff paid for pursuant to the policy and for which it seeks to be reimbursed by defendant as the alleged cause of the water damage. The Supreme Court's finding that the endorsement coverage clause was "ambiguous" is erroneous.
As an additional insured, the defendant cannot be sued in subrogation by its own insurance carrier (North Star Reins. Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co., 82 N.Y.2d 281, 294).
The language of the additional insured endorsement provision is unambiguous and covers defendant for any liability "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the premises". In addition, even assuming one existed, any ambiguity in an insurance contract must be construed more favorably to the insured and strictly against the insurer (Kyong Nam Chang v General Acc. Ins. Co., 193 A.D.2d 521, 522).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.