You are here: / / “Direct Financial Loss” Caused by Employee Defined
,

“Direct Financial Loss” Caused by Employee Defined

The First Department explained what “direct financial loss” means in the context of bonds issued to indemnify a commodities futures broker [MF Global] for loss caused by a wrongful act by an employee:

In the bonds, plaintiffs agreed to indemnify MF Global for losses “sustained at any time for . . . any wrongful act committed by any employee . . . which is committed . . . with the intent to obtain financial gain for [the employee]” (emphasis omitted). “Loss” means “the direct financial loss sustained by [MF Global] as a result of any single act, single omission or single event, or a series of related or continuous acts, omissions or events.” The bonds exclude coverage for “[i]ndirect or consequential loss.” A “[w]rongful act,” with respect to trading in commodities and futures, is defined as “any . . . dishonest . . . act committed with the intent to obtain improper financial gain for . . . an employee” … .. * * *

The motion court properly concluded that MF Global’s loss constituted a “direct financial loss.” Although that term is not defined in the bonds, “[a] direct loss for insurance purposes has been analogized with proximate cause”… …

Here, [a broker’s] conduct in making unauthorized trades beyond his margin was the direct and proximate cause of MF Global’s loss… . New Hampshire Ins Co v MF Global, 2013 NY Slip Op 05291, 1st Dept 7-16-13

 

You might also like
RES IPSA LOQUITUR NEEDN’T BE ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM OR THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THEORY OF LIABILITY, IT IS AN EVIDENTIARY RULE; NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION CAN BE INFERRED UNDER THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
THE JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO RETREAT FROM A SHARED BATHROOM USED ONLY BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE COMPLAINANT; ASSAULT CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF A LADDER WHEN IT WOBBLED AND HE FELL; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Worker Struck by Falling Brick Entitled to Summary Judgment/Comparative Negligence Is Not a Defense to a Labor Law 240(1) Claim
PRESENCE OF LOOSE GRANULES WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP TO HIS KNEES VIOLATED INDUSTRIAL CODE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT FROM A CELL PHONE PICTURE TAKEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AT THE POLICE STATION WERE UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST AND THE EVIDENCE SEIZED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND MANAGER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE ELEVATORS SAFE AND DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A VIOLATION OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Trial Court’s Questioning Jury Whether It Had Reached a Verdict on Any Counts and Its Acceptance of a Partial Verdict Okay

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

Complaint Sufficiently Alleged Facts to Support Piercing the Corporate Vei... Application for Certification as NYC School Bus Driver Should Have Been Denied...