Worth Construction Co., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co

In Worth Construction Co., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (10 NY3d 411 [2008]) the underlying complaint alleged that the plaintiff was injured on a staircase installed by Worth's subcontractor, Pacific Steel, Inc. (Pacific). Pacific had purchased insurance for Worth as an additional insured, providing coverage for Worth with respect to liability arising out of Pacific's operations. In the course of the underlying litigation, Worth conceded that the staircase was merely the situs of the accident, but that the accident was unconnected to any work done by Pacific. While recognizing that, generally, an insurer's duty to defendant arises "'whenever the allegations within the four corners of the underlying complaint potentially give rise to a covered claim'" (id. at 415 ), the Court concluded that the additional insured coverage was not triggered, because, as the plaintiff had conceded, there was no connection between the accident and the risk that was covered. The Court, therefore, reinstated the decision of the Supreme Court which granted summary judgment dismissing Worth's third-party action against Pacific's insurer.