![]() Because of the snow on the side of the roadway, the bare pavement section of the roadway was restricted to approximately 7 - 7.5 feet. On May 11, 2003, Officer Quicquaro submitted an Incident Report after completing his investigation of the accident, concluding as follows: Primary responsibility rested on Shore who should have been walking as far to the side of the roadway as possible. Officer Quicquaro called for medical assistance, and brought his vehicle around to the accident scene. ![]() Meanwhile, a patrol car operated by Middlebury Police Officer Anthony Quicquaro was approaching from the westbound side of the highway, and observed the accident as it occurred. Birardi had no opportunity to brake or avoid a collision, and his vehicle immediately struck Shore and threw him to the side of the road. After cresting a hill, Birardi s vehicle suddenly encountered Shore, who was dressed in dark clothing and in violation of Connecticut law1 was walking westbound in the narrow plowed portion of the eastbound travel lane of the highway. 1067, and Birardi was driving at between 30 and 40 miles per hour, well below the posted 45 mile per hour speed limit. The travel portion of the roadway was restricted due to ongoing snow removal operations, J.A. a light drizzle of freezing rain was occurring. According to a Middlebury Police Department Incident Report, t had snowed throughout the previous evening and. Birardi was driving eastbound on an unilluminated two-lane highway 2 in Middlebury, Connecticut in the early morning hours of April 8, 2003. BACKGROUND The instant dispute arises out of an April 2003 accident in which non-party Robert Shore was struck and injured by a minivan owned by Camrac and driven by Birardi in the course of his employment with RGIS. We hold that, under the specific circumstances of this case, defendants provided timely notice within the meaning of the excess liability insurance policy s notice provision, and therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. _ PER CURIAM: This appeal calls upon us to address the meaning and scope (under Michigan law) of a notice provision contained in an excess liability insurance policy issued by plaintiff-appellant Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company ( Lumbermens ), to its insureds, defendants-appellees RGIS Inventory Specialists, LLC ( RGIS ), Robert M. KHRINENKO, Brand Glick & Brand, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for Appellee Camrac. BERLAND, Dickstein Shapiro LLP, New York, N.Y., for Appellees RGIS and Birardi. _ THORN ROSENTHAL, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, N.Y., for Appellant. Judge Kearse dissents in a separate opinion. _ Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Baer, J.), dated January 22, 2009, denying plaintiff-appellant s motion for partial summary judgment, granting defendants-appellees motion for summary judgment, and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. _ Before: KEARSE, SACK, and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges. BIRARDI, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees, CAMRAC INC., doing business as ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, Defendant-Counter-ClaimantCounter-Defendant-Appellee. RGIS INVENTORY SPECIALISTS, LLC and ROBERT M. 09-0753-cv _ LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter-DefendantCounter-Claimant-Appellant, v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _ August Term, 2009 (Argued: NovemDecided: December 9, 2010) Docket No. 09-0753-cv Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |