In a declaratory judgment action venued in the United States District Court in Rochester, Webster Szanyi obtained a favorable decision that resulted in $6 million of insurance coverage for an insured defending a catastrophic personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court. Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company had disclaimed coverage for its insured, MGB Building, contending that its coverage did not extend to a permissive driver of a vehicle that had been “borrowed” by MGB, because the vehicle was not being used in MGB’s business at the time of the accident. Arguing that the policy did not clearly specify that only borrowed vehicles being used in MGB’s business would be covered, Webster Szanyi’s managing partner Kevin Szanyi convinced the Court that, as the drafter of the policy, it was Harleysville’s obligation to exclude coverage for such situations if that was the insurance company’s intention. Here, however, there was no such limitation in the policy. As Mr. Szanyi noted, at best, the policy was ambiguous and, in such situations, ambiguities must be resolved in an insured’s favor. The Court agreed. See Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company v. MGB Building, Inc., et al., 16-cv-6135-CJS-JWF (W.D.N.Y. 2017).
