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
Suit Against Town by Representatives of Ambulance Personnel Killed in an Accident Prohibited by Volunteer Ambulance Workers’ Benefit Law/Question of Fact Whether Ambulance Driver Was Reckless (in Violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law 1104)
ALTHOUGH THE EMERGENCY HAD DIMINISHED AND THE POLICE OFFICER HAD TURNED OFF HIS SIREN AND LIGHTS WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER WAS STILL ENGAGED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATION AND DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WHICH USED DEFENDANT’S ARREST PHOTOGRAPH WAS UNDULY SUGGESTIVE REQUIRING SUPPRESSION OF THE RELATED IDENTIFICATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BUT DID NOT WARRANT SUPREME COURT’S STRIKING THE COMPLAINT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION IMPOSED EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND ORDERED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO PAY DEFENDANT $3000 (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE LOBBY WAS MOPPED WITH A SOAP-LIKE SUBSTANCE AN HOUR BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL AND PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED SHE NOTICED THE FLOOR WAS WET AND SMELLED OF CLEANING FLUID AFTER SHE FELL; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
COOPERATIVE BOARD’S PARKING RESTRICTION WAS A PROPER EXERCISE OF THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE.
DEBTOR’S LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY FILINGS, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOMMENCE THE SUIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
Where Plaintiff’s Vehicle Repaired to Pre-Accident Condition, No Additional Recovery for Diminution in Resale Value

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

Question of Fact Whether Tenants Entitled to Equitable Renewal of Lease Police Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Justify Request that 12-Year-Old...