You are here: / / Duty to Defend

Duty to Defend

The First Department determined that the insurer was obligated to defend the defendants even though subsequently it may be able to demonstrate the insured did not cause the injuries.  The duty to defend is determined by comparing the policy to the complaint.  If the pleaded claims are potentially within the scope of coverage, the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered:

An insurer may obtain a declaration absolving it of its duty to defend only when a comparison of the policy and the underlying complaint on its face shows that, as a matter of law, “there is no possible factual or legal basis on which the insurer might eventually be held to be obligated to indemnify the insured under any provision of the insurance policy” … . As this Court has observed, “[T]he primary obligation of an insurer is to provide its insured with a defense” …, an obligation that is incurred “if facts alleged in the complaint fall within the scope of coverage intended by the parties at the time the contract was made” … . “By contrast, the duty to indemnify requires a determination of liability” … .

Because the underlying complaints pleaded claims that were potentially within the scope of coverage, plaintiff is obligated to defend the underlying actions. Whether plaintiff might ultimately be able to establish that its insured did not cause the injuries alleged in the underlying actions involves questions of fact yet to be resolved; it is not an issue that can be determined as a matter of law by examination of the insurance contract. Thus, it does not afford a basis to relieve plaintiff of its duty to provide a defense… . Greewich Ins Co v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07933, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

You might also like
NEW YORK LAW APPLIED WHERE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND HIS EMPLOYER ARE CANADIAN, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SHOCKED BY ELECTRIC WIRES ON THE FLOOR, ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION.
FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITH CHILDREN WHO HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PARENTS’ CARE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE DENIAL OF THE PARENTS’ APPLICATION TO HAVE THE CHILDREN RETURNED TO THEM (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE IMPROPERLY SECURED BEAM WHICH STRUCK HIM FELL DID NOT PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM BEING AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Redaction of Information Which Could Possibly Endanger Witnesses in a Homicide Investigation Is Required
Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds—Analytical Criteria Explained
THE PEOPLE FAILED TO TIMELY REDUCE THE BOND OBLIGATION TO A JUDGMENT, THEREFORE THE SURETY’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT FORFEITING THE $100,000 BAIL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Defendant Was Not Plaintiff’s “Special Employer”
PLAINTIFF FELL LEAVING AN ELEVATOR HE HAD JUST MODIFIED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO A FLOOR; HIS WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS ABOUT GUARDING HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIED; ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT; LABOR LAW 200, 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Reversible Error to Deny Defendant’s Request for a Jury Instruction on... Wooden Flooring With Gaps Between the Planks Constituted an Elevation-Related...