[*2]I. Statement Pursuant to CPLR § 2219 [a]

The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 004) numbered 94-118, 148-149, 151 and (Motion No. 005) numbered 119-147, 150, 152 were read on this motion. Upon oral argument completed on Motion Sequence No. 004 and Motion Sequence No. 005 on January 15, 2026 and reading of the filing of the notices of motion, affirmations, exhibits, memoranda of law, answering papers, reply papers, and the pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, the Court renders the following Decision and Order.

Western World Insurance Company issued Commercial General Liability Policy No. Redacted to GC Solutions NY, Inc. for the policy period October 4, 2021, through October 4, 2022, providing coverage for claims of bodily injury and death up to $2,000,000 per occurrence. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 100). The policy contains an Additional Insured Endorsement, Form WW 433 (02/19), entitled "Automatic Status When Required in a Written Contract or Construction Agreement." (see id). That endorsement extends insured status to any person or organization for whom the named insured performs operations when the named insured and such person or organization have agreed in writing, in a contract or agreement, that such person or organization be added as an additional insured. (see id). The endorsement does not require that the underlying contract contain indemnification language as a condition precedent to coverage. (see id).

In October 2021, Eric Michalski, president of GC Solutions, inspected the roof of the Church of St. Andrew with Edward Kamper, a consultant retained by the Church to evaluate and oversee repair work. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 127). Following that inspection, Eric Michalski prepared and transmitted a written proposal describing the scope of roof repairs and the price for the work. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 103). By email dated November 18, 2021, Kamper advised GC Solutions that the Church approved the proposal, expressly conditioning commencement of the work upon GC Solutions providing proof that the Church would be named as an additional insured on its liability insurance policy. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 104).

On December 13, 2021, Chris Michalski, acting on behalf of GC Solutions, sent a written request to GC Solutions' insurance broker, Joseph Bivona, directing that the Church be added as an additional insured on GC Solutions' Western World policy and that a certificate of insurance be issued confirming such coverage. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 105). On the same date, Bivona issued a Certificate of Insurance stating that "St. Andrew's Episcopal Church is included as Additional Insured as required by contract, subject to the Terms, Conditions & Exclusions of the actual policy." (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 107). That certificate was transmitted to the Church, which relied upon it and authorized GC Solutions to proceed with the roof repair work.

GC Solutions thereafter supplied equipment, scaffolding, safety harnesses, materials, and labor to perform the roof repairs at the Church premises. Alexander Gabatashvilli performed the roofing work and was compensated by GC Solutions. On March 25, 2022, while performing that work, Gabatashvilli fell from the roof and sustained fatal injuries.

Following the accident, counsel for the Church tendered defense and indemnification to Western World by letter dated April 6, 2022, enclosing the Certificate of Insurance confirming additional insured status and advising Western World of the impending wrongful death claim. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 109). By letter dated May 3, 2022, Western World denied coverage to the Church, stating that although it acknowledged a contract between GC Solutions and [*3]the Church, the contract did not contain indemnification language and therefore GC Solutions did not owe the Church a defense or indemnification. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 111). No other ground for disclaimer was asserted in that letter. (see id).

By separate letter dated May 5, 2022, Western World denied coverage to GC Solutions based upon the policy's employee exclusion, asserting that Gabatashvilli was an employee of GC Solutions. (NY St Cts Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 112). Western World did not issue any written disclaimer to the Church invoking the employee exclusion. The Estate of Alexander Gabatashvilli thereafter commenced a wrongful death action against the Church in Supreme Court, Kings County. Western World declined to defend or indemnify the Church, and this declaratory judgment action followed.

No party has produced admissible evidence contradicting any of these material facts.

Insurance policies are contracts, and their interpretation is governed by well-settled New York principles. The Court must give effect to the intent expressed in the policy language, reading the contract as a whole and according each provision its plain and ordinary meaning. Where policy language is clear and unambiguous, it is enforced as written. Where ambiguity exists, the language is construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage, so long as the insured's interpretation is reasonable (see Breed v Ins. Co. of N. Am., 46 NY2d 351 [1978]; Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 34 NY2d 356 [1974]; Fed. Ins. Co. v Intl. Bus. Machs. Corp., 18 NY3d 642 [2012]). These interpretive rules apply with particular force to exclusionary and limiting provisions, which must be expressed in clear and unmistakable language and are strictly construed against the insurer.

The Additional Insured Endorsement in the Western World policy provides that insured status extends to any person or organization for whom the named insured performs operations when the named insured and such person or organization have agreed in writing, in a contract or agreement, that such person or organization be added as an additional insured. The record establishes precisely such an agreement. The written proposal, the written acceptance expressly conditioning performance upon procurement of additional insured coverage, the written instruction by GC Solutions to its broker to add the Church as an additional insured, and the broker's issuance of a certificate confirming that the Church "is included as Additional Insured as required by contract," collectively demonstrate mutual assent to confer additional insured status. Under New York law, a binding written agreement may be established through correspondence and email exchanges reflecting offer, acceptance, and assent to material terms (see Stone Hill Capital Mgt., LLC v Bank of the W., 28 NY3d 439 [2016]; Forcelli v Gelco Corp., 109 AD3d 244 [2d Dept 2013]). The documentary record satisfies that standard.

Even if the writings were viewed as less than a formally integrated contract, materially identical additional insured language has been held ambiguous and therefore construed in favor of coverage. In Superior Ice Rink v Nescon Contr. Corp. (52 AD3d 688 [2d Dept 2008]), the Second Department held that where an additional insured endorsement requires a "written contract, agreement or permit," the modifying term "written" may reasonably be read to apply only to "contract," rendering the provision ambiguous and subject to construction favoring additional insured coverage. The endorsement language in the present policy is materially similar. Under that authority, any arguable uncertainty regarding the formality of the agreement must be resolved in favor of coverage.

Once additional insured status is established, New York law recognizes that the additional [*4]insured is entitled to the same coverage protection afforded the named insured for covered risks. The Court of Appeals has expressly held that an additional insured endorsement is not an illusory promise but confers enforceable protection in accordance with the policy terms (see Pecker Iron Works of NY v Travelers Ins. Co., 99 NY2d 391 [2003]). The First Department has likewise recognized that an owner added as an additional insured on a contractor's policy is entitled to coverage and defense benefits consistent with the endorsement (see BP Air Conditioning Corp. v One Beacon Ins. Group, 33 AD3d 116 [1st Dept 2006]). Accordingly, having established its additional insured status, the Church is entitled to defense and indemnification unless Western World issued a valid and timely disclaimer grounded in a policy exclusion.

Western World's May 3, 2022, disclaimer to the Church relied exclusively on the asserted absence of indemnification language in the construction agreement. The Additional Insured Endorsement contains no requirement that the underlying contract include an indemnification clause. An insurer may not deny coverage by importing into the policy conditions that the insurer itself did not write. Where a disclaimer rests upon a requirement absent from the policy, it is ineffective to defeat coverage that the policy otherwise affords. The Court therefore concludes that Western World's May 3, 2022, denial is legally insufficient to negate Plaintiff's entitlement to coverage.

Western World also seeks to invoke the employee exclusion contained in the policy. Insurance Law § 3420 [d] [2] mandates that when an insurer disclaims coverage for bodily injury or death arising from an accident occurring in New York, it must provide written notice of disclaimer to the insured and any claimant "as soon as is reasonably possible." The Court of Appeals has held that once an insurer possesses sufficient knowledge of facts entitling it to disclaim, unexplained delay in issuing a written disclaimer is unreasonable as a matter of law (see First Fin. Ins. Co. v Jetco Contr. Corp., 1 NY3d 64 [2003]). The statute's protections extend fully to additional insureds, who are "claimants" within the meaning of the statute (see Bowers v Grier, 185 AD3d 998 [2d Dept 2020]).

Moreover, when an insurer seeks to deny coverage to an additional insured based upon a policy exclusion, the disclaimer must be directed to the additional insured. Notice solely to the named insured or to counsel does not satisfy the statute (see AVR-Powell Dev. Corp. v Ulster County Indus. Dev. Agency, 174 AD3d 772 [2d Dept 2019]; Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co. v Utica First Ins. Co., 132 AD3d 434 [1st Dept 2015]). Failure to provide a timely and direct written disclaimer to the additional insured precludes the insurer from relying on the exclusion as a defense to coverage.

Here, Western World had knowledge by May 5, 2022, that it intended to rely upon the employee exclusion, as evidenced by its disclaimer to GC Solutions on that precise ground. Western World did not, however, issue any written disclaimer to the Church invoking the employee exclusion. No explanation for that omission appears in the record. Under the governing statutory framework and controlling appellate authority, this failure to issue a timely written disclaimer directly to the additional insured precludes Western World from asserting the employee exclusion against Plaintiff.

Even if Western World were not statutorily barred from invoking the employee exclusion, the exclusion's phrasing, as applied to an additional insured confronted with injury to an employee of the named insured, admits at least one reasonable interpretation favoring coverage. Under settled interpretive doctrine, any ambiguity in exclusionary language must be construed strictly against the insurer and in favor of coverage (see Breed v. Insurance Co. of North America, 46 NY2d 351 [1978]; Federal Ins. Co. v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 18 NY3d 642 [2012]). This provides [*5]an independent basis to reject the exclusion as a bar to coverage on this record.

The material facts are documentary, undisputed, and sufficient to resolve the coverage dispute as a matter of law. No triable issue of fact has been raised. Summary judgment is therefore appropriate.

The record establishes that the Church of St. Andrew is an additional insured under Western World Policy No. Redacted; that Western World's disclaimer based upon absence of indemnification language is unsupported by the policy; that Western World failed to issue a timely written disclaimer to the Church invoking the employee exclusion as required by Insurance Law § 3420 [d] [2]; and that Western World is therefore obligated to provide defense and indemnification to the Church in the underlying wrongful death action, up to the limits of the policy.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Motion Sequence No. 004) is GRANTED; and it is further

DECLARED, that Plaintiff, The Church of St. Andrew, is an additional insured under Policy No. Redacted issued by Defendant Western World Insurance Company to GC Solutions NY, Inc.; and it is further

DECLARED, that Defendant Western World Insurance Company is obligated to defend and indemnify Plaintiff in the action entitled Sisauri v Church of St. Andrew, pending in Supreme Court, Kings County, up to the limits of said policy; and it is further

ORDERED, that Defendant Western World Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment (Motion Sequence No. 005) is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.