You are here: / / Whether the “Assault and Battery” Exclusion from Coverage Pertained to ...
,

Whether the “Assault and Battery” Exclusion from Coverage Pertained to an Arson Is a Question of Fact Which Depends Upon the Motives of the Arsonist

A fire in plaintiff’s building left several people dead or injured.  A person was arrested and charged with arson in connection with the fire. The plaintiff brought a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the defendant insurance company was required to defend and indemnify plaintiff.  The main issue was whether the policy exclusion of damages caused by assault and battery applied. The First Department affirmed the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the insurance company’s affirmative defenses, i.e., the assault and battery exclusion and the lack of bodily injury caused by accident or occurrence.  The First Department wrote:

Civil assault and battery are intentional acts, and the assault offenses with which the accused arsonist is charged do not include the intent to harm a specific individual (compare PJI 2d 3:2 [assault]; 3:3 [battery], with Penal Law 120.10[4] [assault in the first degree]; 120.05[6] [assault in the second degree]). Thus, assuming that the insurance policy exclusion is triggered by civil, rather than criminal, assault or battery, the critical inquiry is whether the accused arsonist, in allegedly causing the fire, intended to harm any occupant of the building. Although the determination of the criminal action is therefore not necessary to a determination of the application of the exclusion, the criminal trial may shed light on the accused arsonist’s motives, including whether he intended to harm anyone inside the building. In any event, the criminal trial may enable defendant to obtain access to evidence and witnesses that will assist in determining whether the exclusion applies. Based on representations made at oral argument, the criminal trial has been concluded and, thus, the stay should be lifted. In light of the foregoing, the motion court correctly denied plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses based on the assault and battery exclusion and the lack of bodily injury caused by an accident or occurrence.  20-35 86th St Realty, LLC v Tower Ins Co of NY, 2013 NY Slip Op 03413, 1st Dept, 5-14-13

 

 

You might also like
THE PORT AUTHORITY DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH BY SUICIDE; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT CLIMBED OVER A FOUR-FOOT-TALL PEDESTRIAN RAILING AND JUMPED OFF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE (FIRST DEPT).
A RETROCESSIONAL INSURER WHICH PAID OUT A SETTLEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE INSURED IN THE UNDERLYING LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL CASE, IS ENTITLED TO BRING A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE LAWYERS FOR THE INSURED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS STATED CLAIMS FOR TENANT HARASSMENT, PRIVATE NUISANCE, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY, WATER, HEAT AND VENTILATION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT ACCOUNTANT DEPARTED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD FOR TAX PREPARATION SERVICES (FIRST DEPT).
TENANT WAS PRECLUDED FROM ASSERTING A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF THE COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT BECAUSE THE TENANT HAD ALREADY STOPPED PAYING RENT WHEN IT VACATED THE PREMISES (FIRST DEPT).
A HEAVY PUMP, 3 TO 4 FEET IN HEIGHT, WHICH WAS LEANING AGAINST THE WALL, TIPPED OVER AND STRUCK THE PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim
COMPLAINT IN PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS WHO CANNOT USE STAIRS PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS; 360 OF 427 NYC SUBWAY STATIONS ARE ACCESSIBLE ONLY BY STAIRS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Action for Contingency Fee; No Demonstration Law Firm Had Been Discharged Exclusion of Petitioner from Hearing During Testimony of Primary Witness Required...