You are here: / / Policy Taken Out to Cover Original One Story Building Did Not Cover Accident...

Policy Taken Out to Cover Original One Story Building Did Not Cover Accident on Additional Floors Under Construction

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined that an insurance police which covered the original one-story building did not cover the additional floors subsequently under construction.  In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe (with a dissent), the First Department wrote:

“Coverage cannot be afforded on liability for which insurance was not purchased” …. While the obligation to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify, it “does not extend to claims not covered by the policy” …. “[I]f the allegations interposed in the underlying complaint allow for no interpretation which brings them within the policy provisions, then no duty to defend exists” … .   If a policy insures a portion of a building, it does not cover an injury occurring in another portion of the building… . Seneca Ins Co v Cimran Co, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02360, 9226, 1st Dept, 4-9-13

 

You might also like
NYC LOCAL LAW REQUIRING DISCLOSURE ABOUT THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT PREEMPTED BY STATE LAW AND IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
AN INQUIRY MADE BY THE COURT CLERK OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS ABOUT WHETHER THEY COULD SERVE IN THIS SEXUAL-ASSAULT-OF-A-CHILD CASE DID NOT AMOUNT TO AN IMPROPER DELEGATION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY; THERE WAS NO MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (FIRST DEPT). ​
HERE THERE WAS NO VALID REASON TO DENY DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
CITY DEFENDANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR FAILURE TO PRESERVE PRE-ACCIDENT POLICE COMMUNICATIONS IN THIS POLICE-VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WERE AWARE THEY WOULD PROBABLY ASSERT AN EMERGENCY DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSTALLING CONDENSERS WAS ‘ALTERATION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL OVERSTATED THE RISK OF DEPORTATION CAUSING HIM TO REJECT A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FIRST DEPT).
Chronic Nonpayment Not Subject to 15-Day Cure Period; Chronic Nonpayment is Treated Differently from Occasional Nonpayment
SORA COURT MAY HAVE OVERASSESSED THE RISK IN A STATUTORY RAPE CASE, MATTER REMITTED FOR PROPER APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN PEOPLE V GILLOTTI (FIRST 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

Plaintiff Was Deemed Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Next-Door Neighbor... Abuse of Discretion in Disallowing Jury Challenge Required Reversal of Conv...