You are here: / / Action Against Broker for Failure to Procure Correct Coverage Should Not...
,

Action Against Broker for Failure to Procure Correct Coverage Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Question of Injured Worker’s Employment Status Must First Be Determined by the Workers’ Compensation Board

The Second Department determined that a cause of action alleging the insurance broker (Crystal) failed to purchase adequate insurance in response to a request from the insured (Mariani) should not have been dismissed.  The insured’s worker was injured on the job and the insurer disclaimed coverage because the policy did not cover subcontractors.  The Second Department also determined that it was up to the Workers’ Compensation Board to first determine the injured worker’s employment status and Supreme Court should not inject itself into that question until the Board acts:

“An insurance agent or broker . . . may be held liable under theories of breach of contract or negligence for failing to procure insurance . . . An insured must show that the agent or broker failed to discharge the duties imposed by the agreement to obtain insurance, either by proof that it breached the agreement or because it failed to exercise due care in the transaction” … . Crystal was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it failed to establish, prima facie, that it procured the adequate coverage that Mariani had engaged it to procure … . Siekkeli v Mark Mariani Inc, 2014 Slip Op 05319, 2nd Dept 7-16-14

 

You might also like
DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Good Faith Lender, Which Recorded Its Mortgage First, Had a Duty to Inquire About a Prior Mortgage
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ (ZBA’S) DENIAL OF A LOT-SIZE VARIANCE CONFLICTED WITH A PRIOR RULING BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS; THEREFORE THE ZBA WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR ITS DECISION; THE DECISION, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY COMMUNITY OPPOSITION, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE BILLS OF PARTICULARS AND RELIED ON A DISPUTED FACT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE A MORTGAGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE BANK PROVED THE DE-ACCELERATION NOTICE WAS PROPERLY TRANSMITTED TO PLAINTIFF, RENDERING THE UNDERLYING FORECLOSURE ACTION TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NO PARTY REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
Standard of Care Required of Train Operator
UNTIMELY MOTION TO INTERVENE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

Claimant’s Inculpatory Statement Demonstrated to Be Product of Police... No Standing to Bring an Action Contending Foie Gras Produced by Forced Feeding...