Filed Date: 3/10/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
While “an insurer’s duty to defend and to pay defense costs under liability insurance policies must be construed broadly in favor of the policyholder” (Federal Ins. Co. v Kozlowski, 18 AD3d 33, 41 [2005] [citation omitted]), the “existence of the duty is dependent upon whether sufficient facts are stated so as to invoke coverage under the policy” (American Home Assur. Co. v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 66 AD2d 269, 278 [1979]). The policy here did not cover plaintiff against the claims alleged in the underlying class action, and defendant thus had no duty to advance defense costs (see Société Générale v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 1 AD 3d 164 [2003]). Rejection of plaintiffs’ cause of action for a declaration required that the court declare in favor of defendant, and we modify accordingly (Decana Inc. v Contogouris, 55 AD3d 325, 326 [2008]).
We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.