You are here: / / Policy Exclusions Not Affected by Additional Insured Endorsement

Policy Exclusions Not Affected by Additional Insured Endorsement

The Second Department explained how the exclusion provisions of a policy are affected by the language of an additional insured endorsement:

Here, the plain meaning of the exclusion … was that the …policy did not provide coverage for damages arising out of bodily injury sustained by an employee of any insured in the course of his or her employment…. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contentions, the fact that the blanket additional insured endorsement contained its own additional exclusions did not eliminate the exclusions contained in the …policy. In construing an endorsement to an insurance policy, the endorsement and the policy must be read together, and the words of the policy remain in full force and effect except as altered by the words of the endorsement…. Accordingly, since the employee exclusion clause in the …policy unambiguously recited that coverage was precluded, the Supreme Court properly granted … a judgment declaring that [the insurer] is not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs in the underlying action. Soho Plaza Corp v Birnbaum, 2013 NY Slip Op 05058, 2nd Dept 7-3-13

 

You might also like
PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE WET AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
IN THIS CEILING-COLLAPSE CASE, THE NEGLIGENCE PER SE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW AND THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
STUDENT WITH CEREBRAL PALSY COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME, SUPERVISION WAS ADEQUATE AND INJURY WAS DUE TO A SPONTANEOUS ACT WHICH SUPERVISION COULD NOT PREVENT, SCHOOL’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
A FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SEX OFFENDER AND THE VICTIM (HERE DEFENDANT’S YOUNG STEPDAUGHTER) DOES NOT INCREASE THE RISK TO THE PUBLIC AND THEREFORE CANNOT, STANDING ALONE, BE THE BASIS FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S AFFIRMATION STATING HE NEVER RECEIVED THE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS NOT REBUTTED BY PLAINTIFF; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTION AND THE RESULTING JUDGMENT WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE, MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE ACTION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE AND RPAPL 1304 (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

Criteria for Easement Granted in General Terms Participation in Program Can Be Delayed Until Close to Release Date