You are here: / / Successive Tenants of Same Apartment Limited to a Single Policy Limit Re:...
, ,

Successive Tenants of Same Apartment Limited to a Single Policy Limit Re: Recovery for Lead Paint Exposure

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Smith, over a dissent, determined that the children in two families who were successive tenants of the same apartment were restricted to recovery for exposure to lead paint to a single policy limit, and not multiple policy limits based upon annual policy renewals.  The two families’ recoveries were limited to the single $500,000 policy limit:

In September 1991, Allstate Insurance Company issued a policy of liability insurance to the landlord of a two-family house in Rochester. The policy was renewed annually for the years beginning September 1992 and September 1993. It stated on the declarations page a $500,000 limit for “each occurrence,” and contained the following noncumulation clause:

“Regardless of the number of insured persons, injured persons, claims, claimants or policies involved, our total liability under the Family Liability Protection coverage for damages resulting from one accidental loss will not exceed the limit shown on the declarations page. All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accidental loss or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered the result of one accidental loss.”

Felicia Young and her children lived in one of the two apartments in the house from November 1992 until September 1993. In July 1993, the Department of Health notified the landlord that one of the children had been found to have an elevated blood lead level and that several areas in the apartment were in violation of State regulations governing lead paint. The Department listed the violations and directed the landlord to correct them. The landlord made some repairs, and the Department advised him in August 1993 that the violations “have been corrected.”

After the Young family moved out of the apartment in September 1993, Lorenzo Patterson, Sr. and Qyashitee Davis moved in with their two children. Again a child was found to have an elevated blood lead level, and the Department of Health sent another letter saying that violations had been found and instructing the landlord to correct them. (This letter was sent in December 1994, but the parties seem to assume that the elevated readings resulted at least in part from events on or before September 29, 1994, the last day of Allstate’s coverage.) * * *

Young’s children and Nesmith’s grandchildren were exposed to the same hazard, lead paint, in the same apartment. Perhaps they were not exposed to exactly the same conditions; but to say that the “general conditions” were not the same would deprive the word “general” of all meaning. Nesmith argues that, because the landlord made an effort to correct the problem after Young’s children were exposed and before Nesmith’s grandchildren moved in, the “conditions” that injured her grandchildren must have been new ones. But she makes no claim, and the record provides no basis for inferring, that a new lead paint hazard had been introduced into the apartment. The only possible conclusion from this record is that the landlord’s remedial efforts were not wholly successful, and that the same general conditions — the presence of lead paint that endangered children’s health — continued to exist. Because Young’s children and Nesmith’s grandchildren were injured by exposure to the same general conditions their injuries were part of a single “accidental loss,” and only one policy limit is available to the two families. Nesmith v Allstate Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08217, CtApp 11-25-14

 

You might also like
Although the Police Could Have Done More to Make Sure Defendant Was Not Represented by Counsel Before Questioning Him, Defendant’s Prior Attorney’s Statement to the Police that He Was No Longer Representing the Defendant Was Enough
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE’S RULE PROHIBITING DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS FROM RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTION OF FREE SPEECH (CT APP).
FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY STAY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BEFORE THE STAY WENT INTO EFFECT (CT APP).
PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR TO BE ENTITLED TO BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION REFUNDS FOR THOSE YEARS.
​ALL AGREED A MULTIPLICITOUS COUNT SHOULD BE DISMISSED; THE CONCURRENCE ARGUED THE PROSECUTION HERE WAS UNNECESSARY AND A RESTORATIVE-JUSTICE APPROACH WOULD HAVE BEEN BEST (CT APP).
Work on Billboard Was “Alteration” within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) and “Construction” within Meaning of Labor Law 241 (6)
THE DEFENDANT, THINKING THAT THE PERSON TRYING TO BREAK-IN WAS HER ESTRANGED HUSBAND WHO HAD BROKEN IN AND ATTACKED HER BEFORE, FIRED A SINGLE SHOT THROUGH THE METAL DOOR, KILLING THE VICTIM (WHO WAS NOT HER ESTRANGED HUSBAND); BECAUSE HER USE OF THE WEAPON WAS DEEMED DANGEROUS AND RECKLESS, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE TEMPORARY AND LAWFUL USE OF A WEAPON JURY INSTRUCTION (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S SIGNING A WRITTEN WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO AN INDICTMENT BY GRAND JURY MET CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS, ALTHOUGH BETTER PRACTICE WOULD INCLUDE ELICITING DEFENDANT’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE RIGHT BEING WAIVED (CT APP).

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

Corporation Created by Seneca Nation to Operate a Golf Course Was Not Entitled... Question of Fact Whether Residential Facility Exercised the Care a Reasonable...