Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh v. Hartford Insurance 93 N.Y.2d 983

← Cases

National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh v. Hartford Insurance

93 N.Y.2d 983 Court N.Y. Decision date 1999-07-06 English

Contents

Majority

p. 983
[717 NE2d 1077, 695 NYS2d 740]
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., Respondent, v Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Appellant.
Argued May 6, 1999;
decided July 6, 1999
p. 985
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
O’Brien & Mayr, Rockville Centre (Nicholas P. Calabria and James M. O’Brien of counsel), for appellant.
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, New York City (Eric A. Portuguese and Bruce M. Strikowsky of counsel), for respondent.
p. 986
OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary, since the Appellate Division order reversing the judgment of the trial court was final.

The dispositive issue in Chaos Construction Corporation’s prior lawsuit against only National Union Fire Insurance Company was whether National was obligated to defend and indemnify Chaos in the underlying wrongful death action. That is not the same issue as here, where National seeks a declaration that Hartford Insurance Company owes it a duty of contribution as a coinsurer of Chaos. Because “identicality of an issue” is lacking here (Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents, 72 NY2d 261 , 266), Hartford has failed to establish its entitlement to collateral estoppel against National. Under the circumstances of this case, Supreme Court’s resolution of the earlier action does not preclude National from now seeking resolution of its contribution claim.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cases cited