On August 22, 2006, DCIC answered the complaint in the underlying action on behalf of the Suresky defendants.
On October 25, 2007, DCIC commenced this action seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Suresky defendants in the underlying action and that the Zurich policy provided primary coverage.
Although Supreme Court stated that "at best there are issues of fact" as to whether the vehicle was covered under the DCIC policy, it determined that Zurich had made a prima facie showing that DCIC was estopped from denying coverage and that DCIC failed to raise a triable issue of fact on estoppel.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's conclusion, however, the respondents met their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the vehicle was covered by the DCIC policy, and DCIC failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
In opposition, DCIC admitted that the vehicle was enrolled in the DRAC program, but contended that, as an additional prerequisite, the vehicle needed to be "rented" in order to be a "covered auto.
3 million, which included $629,000 in loans and loan commitments to a DCIC loan pool to develop more than 1000 units of affordable housing.
Examiners noted that FNBA committed to invest $450,000 in a DCIC low-income housing tax credit investment fund to create 289 affordable housing units.
Wachovia has represented that FBNA funded a total of more than $943,000 in community development loans and investments through DCIC from 1998 through 2000.