You are here: / / The Meaning of “Manifest Intent” in the Context of a Fidelity...
,

The Meaning of “Manifest Intent” in the Context of a Fidelity Bond Insuring the Employer Against Dishonest Acts by an Employee Explained

The First Department explained what the term “manifest intent” means as the term appeared in a fidelity bond which insured the employer from dishonest acts by an employee. The coverage was triggered only when the employee acted with the “manifest intent” to cause the insured to sustain loss or to obtain financial benefit for the employee or a third party:

Manifest intent involves a continuum of conduct, ranging from embezzlement, where the employee necessarily intends to cause the employer the loss, to the other end of the continuum, which does not trigger fidelity coverage, where “the employee’s dishonesty at the expense of a third party is intended to benefit the employer, since the employee’s gain results from the employer’s gain”… .

Manifest intent to injure an employer exists as a matter of law where an employee acts with substantial certainty that his employer will ultimately bear the loss occasioned by his dishonesty and misconduct… . Keybank Natl Assn v National Union Fire Ins Co of Pittsburgh PA, 2015 NY Slip Op 00614, 1st Dept 1-22-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A HOLE WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
ACTIONS FOR TRESPASS AND ENCROACHMENT ALLEGING DAMAGE TO A PARTY WALL PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IN 1869 DEED DID NOT BENEFIT ANYONE OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL GRANTEE (FIRST DEPT).
Condominium Unit Owner Has Common Law Right to Examine Books
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE VISITATION ISSUES TO A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL; THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR MODIFYING VISITATION ONCE FATHER HAS GAINED INSIGHT INTO THE CHILD’S NEEDS WAS EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​
ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE ZONING LOT, THEREFORE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE ROOF SPACE, PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (FIRST DEPT).
ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
THE USE OF ICE PACKS WAS NOT PART OF THE DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER’S BURN-TREATMENT SYSTEM; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFF FOR THE FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST APPLYING ICE PACKS TO BARE SKIN (FIRST DEPT).
Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion

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

One Incident Where Young Children Were Left Alone Overnight Not Enough to Support... Safety Regulation Asserted to Be the Basis of the Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of...