Absence of Privity Precluded Application of Collateral Estoppel Doctrine
The Third Department, in reversing Supreme Court, determined the absence of privity precluded the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Northrop owned a gas station which was a designated spill site (gasoline). The Department of Environmental Conservation spent about $125,000 cleaning it up. Northrop sought payment for the clean-up from its insurance carrier (the defendant here). In a prior declaratory judgment proceeding Supreme Court determined the policy did not cover petroleum contamination. Then the state, the plaintiff here, started an action against the defendant insurance company under Navigation Law 190 seeking reimbursement of the clean-up expenses. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (the prior declaratory judgment finding the insurance policy did not cover the clean-up expense). In reversing, finding collateral estoppel should not have been invoked because Northrop and the state were not in privity, the Third Department wrote:
Plaintiff is the entity that has undertaken the cleanup and now seeks reimbursement for monies expended. Thus, plaintiff has a right of indemnification against Northport to recoup these costs …, establishing an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship. Plaintiff’s right of indemnification, however, is independent of Northport’s contractual right to have its insurance carrier, defendant, cover these costs under the terms of the liability insurance policy. Moreover, Navigation Law § 190 authorizes plaintiff to commence a direct action against defendant, and this right is independent of plaintiff’s right of indemnification against Northport. Given that plaintiff’s rights are not conditioned upon and do not derive from Northport’s, the existence of an indemnitor-indemnitee relationship between Northport and plaintiff does not establish privity between these parties. State of New York v Zurich American Insurance Company, 514916, 3rd Dept, 5-9-13