You are here: / / Fall After Coverage Ceased Not Covered, Even though Dangerous Condition...
, ,

Fall After Coverage Ceased Not Covered, Even though Dangerous Condition Alleged to Have Existed Before Termination of Coverage

After the premises was sold it was removed from coverage under a Travelers insurance policy.  Plaintiff slipped and fell on the property ten days after coverage was removed.  Supreme Court determined Travelers was obligated to defend because it was alleged the injury was related to a dangerous condition that existed before the property was sold (when it was insured by Travelers).  In reversing, the Second Department wrote:

Here, the subject insurance policy, read as a whole, clearly and unambiguously provides that the duty to defend and indemnify will attach only to bodily injury caused by an “occurrence” that is covered by the policy and that occurs during the policy period … .Accordingly, Travelers made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the bodily injury for which the plaintiff seeks a defense and indemnification occurred after the premises had been removed from coverage … .Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the … allegation that the accident was caused by a dangerous condition that existed on the premises before it was removed from coverage does not obligate Travelers to defend and indemnify it. Since the policy predicates coverage upon the sustaining of bodily injury during the policy period, it is immaterial that the negligent acts which allegedly caused the occurrence took place while the policy covering the premises was still in effect … .  Jericho Atrium Assoc v Travelers Prop Cas Co of Am, 2013 NY Slip Op 03461, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

SLIP AND FALL

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE BY COUNSEL’S FILING A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE WITHOUT RAISING THE JURISDICTION OBJECTION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MORTGAGE-PAYMENT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT WITHIN THE MEANING OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START ANEW; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS WERE BROUGHT AGAINST FATHER WHO DID NOT LIVE WITH MOTHER AND THE CHILD; MOTHER WAS NOT A PARTY IN THE NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE MOTHER UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOVEMENT OF THE COMMON CARRIER’S VAN WAS NOT UNUSUAL OR VIOLENT, THE PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED A MONEY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT PERSONALLY, DEFENDANT WAS ONLY A PARTY TO THE ACTION AS A TRUSTEE (SECOND DEPT).
“Independent Contractor Rule”
PLAINTIFF’S LEANING TO THE SIDE OF A NON-DEFECTIVE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.

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

12 to 15 Inch Drop Not a “Hazardous Opening” and Did Not Trigger Ramp or... Failure of Freezer to Properly Cool Baked Goods Was an “Occurrence” (I.e.,...