Justice Saliann Scarpulla
An action arose from an alleged assault on the individual plaintiffs in a Manhattan nightclub. Plaintiffs began the underlying personal injury action against the club and subsequently argued that Capitol Specialty Insurance Ltd. and Redland Insurance Ltd. must make their full insurance policies available. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, arguing that Capitol must provide up to $1 million in coverage because it did not give plaintiffs timely notice of its assault/battery sub-limit. Plaintiffs also maintained that Redland must make available the full $4 million under its excess policy because that policy is triggered whether or not the first insurer applied the $50,000 sub-limit on its underlying policy. Capitol and Redland cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that a $50,000 sub-limit applies to Capitol’s policy and that Redland’s excess policy is unavailable. The court found that Capitol did not deny plaintiffs the benefit of insurance coverage, as it offered the full measure of available insurance for the incident. The court added that since the Redland policy did not specify any exclusions or sub-limits, or reference any Capitol policy exclusions or sub-limits, it must make its full $4,000,000 coverage available.
