You are here: / / Duty to Defend Broader than Duty to Indemnify.
, ,

Duty to Defend Broader than Duty to Indemnify.

The Second Department applied the rule that an insurer’s duty to defend under a policy is broader than its duty to indemnify.  Because the language of the policy was broad enough to cover the cause of action for unfair competition, the insurer was obligated to defend, in spite of the fact that the related breach of contract cause of action was excluded from coverage under the terms of the policy.  Natural Organics, Inc v OneBeacon America Insurance Co., 2011-03268, 2011-05298, Index No. 12763/10 Second Dept. 1-16-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT WHICH COVERED PLAINTIFF, A SCHOOL DISTRICT EMPLOYEE WHO WAS INJURED ON THE JOB; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD NOT BE SUED BY THE EMPLOYEE AFTER THE INSURER CUT OFF BENEFITS (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE DEFENDANT FIRST STOPPED AT THE STOP SIGN OR DROVE THROUGH THE STOP SIGN DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE EITHER WAY THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW WAS VIOLATED; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST BROKER INDIVIDUALLY FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE BROKER’S CORPORATION.
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION A DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF STANDING IS NOT A DISMISSAL ON THE MERITS RE: RES JUDICATA; A SECOND DISCONTINUANCE WHICH IS NOT ON NOTICE IS NOT A DISCONTINUANCE WITH PREJUDICE RE: CPLR 3217 (C) (SECOND DEPT).
CHILD WAS ENTITLED TO A FINDING THAT REUNIFICATION WITH HIS MOTHER IN EL SALVADOR WAS NOT VIABLE DUE TO PARENTAL NEGLECT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT SIGN THE NOTE, HE WAS A TITLE-HOLDER AND WAS LISTED AS A BORROWER ON THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(A)(1); THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS FORSEEABLE THAT A LEAKY ROOF NEEDING REPAIR WOULD COLLAPSE WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Damages Related to Improvements Made on Condemned Property Allowed. Waiver of Right to Appeal Unenforceable.