Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Background

Samsung brought a declaratory-judgment action against Liberty Mutual. Samsung sought a ruling that Liberty Mutual had a primary, non-contributing duty to defend and indemnify the defendants in an underlying personal-injury lawsuit, as well as reimbursement of Samsung’s defense fees and costs. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which asks whether the undisputed facts require judgment for one party as a matter of law.

In the underlying lawsuit, Joseph C. Darretta alleged that he was injured when he stepped on debris, including a broom-stick handle, in the loading-dock area while making a delivery to Telco. The underlying complaint alleged negligent ownership, maintenance, operation, management, and control of the premises. The court noted that the underlying pleadings did not mention an auto, truck, UPS, or the loading or unloading of a vehicle, and that the parties agreed the claim was a premises-liability claim. The underlying court had granted summary judgment to some defendants and had granted Darretta summary judgment on liability against other defendants.

Samsung issued T&E Stores a policy containing both commercial-auto and general-liability coverage. Samsung defended and settled the underlying action under the general-liability coverage. Liberty Mutual issued UPS a commercial-auto policy covering bodily injury caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. Liberty Mutual denied Samsung’s tender of the defense and indemnity.

Court’s Analysis

The underlying defendants were not insureds under Liberty Mutual’s policy

Samsung argued that the underlying defendants qualified as insureds under a policy provision covering anyone liable for the conduct of an insured, but only to the extent of that liability. The court explained that this provision applies when the person claiming coverage is being sued vicariously—that is, for the conduct of a named insured or permissive user.

The court found no such claim in the underlying lawsuit. The claim concerned the underlying defendants’ alleged negligent maintenance of the loading-dock area, not liability for UPS’s or another insured’s conduct. The court also rejected Samsung’s argument that the underlying defendants were permissive users because they were receiving a delivery. The policy excluded people loading or unloading a covered auto from the definition of insured, subject to exceptions that did not apply to the underlying defendants.

The injury did not arise from use of a covered auto

The court held that an injury occurring during loading or unloading does not automatically fall within auto coverage. Under the New York law discussed in the opinion, the injury must result from an act or omission related to the vehicle’s use; merely being injured during the unloading process is not enough.

The undisputed facts showed that the underlying lawsuit was based on premises liability and did not allege that the injury resulted from negligent use or maintenance of the UPS truck. The court therefore concluded that the underlying claim was not covered by Liberty Mutual’s auto policy.

Samsung’s contribution claim failed

The court also held that Samsung could not obtain contribution because the two insurers did not insure the same insured against the same risk. Liberty Mutual’s policy was a commercial-auto policy, while Samsung handled the underlying claim under its general-liability coverage, which excluded auto-related losses. Samsung did not handle the claim under its commercial-auto coverage. The court concluded that the policies therefore did not insure the same risk.

Disposition

The court concluded that Liberty Mutual was not liable for the conduct at issue in the underlying action. It granted Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary judgment and denied Samsung’s motion for summary judgment. It also denied Samsung’s request for oral argument and directed the Clerk of Court to close the relevant docket entries and the case.