You are here: / / Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located...
,

Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located in the Parking Lot) Into the Building’s Septic System Was Not Subject to the “Parking Lot” Exclusion from Coverage—The Claim Did Not Arise from the “Ownership, Maintenance or Use” of the Parking Lot, But Rather Arose from the “Operations Necessary or Incidental” to the Insured Building

The Second Department determined that the exclusion of a parking lot from a bodily injury insurance policy did not apply to the failure of a manhole cover in the parking lot.  Plaintiff’s decedent drowned in the leaching pool below the manhole. The leaching pool and manhole cover were deemed to be part of the building’s septic system.  Therefore the claim arose from operations necessary or incidental to the building, and not out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the parking lot:

The policy provided coverage for bodily injury “arising out of . . . [t]he ownership, maintenance or use of the premises . . . and operations necessary or incidental to those premises.” The policy excluded coverage for claims “arising out of . . . [t]he ownership, maintenance or use of [a specified parking lot] or any property located on these premises; [or] Operations . . . necessary or incidental to the ownership, maintenance or use of those premises” (hereinafter the parking lot exclusion). * * *

Exclusions to coverage must be strictly construed and read narrowly, with any ambiguity construed against the insurer … . “[T]o negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case'” … . …

Since the allegedly defective manhole cover and leaching pool into which the decedent fell were part of the building’s septic system, the decedent’s claim arose out of operations necessary or incidental to the building, and not out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the rear parking lot. Thus, strictly construing the parking lot exclusion and reading it narrowly, it does not apply … . Lancer Indem. Co. v JKH Realty Group, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03331, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

You might also like
ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION IS THE PROPER SANCTION FOR THE NEGLIGENT DESTRUCTION OF AN EMPLOYEE’S RECORDS IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST A RESPITE CARE FACILITY (SECOND DEPT).
GOVERNOR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THE SPECIAL ELECTION FOR QUEENS BOROUGH PRESIDENT IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC (SECOND DEPT).
Sentencing Court Must Place on the Record Its Reasons for Denying Youthful Offender Status
Primary Assumption of Risk Jury Charge Required Reversal.
DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SALES COUNTER AND DISPLAY UNIT INSTALLED AT THE OUTSET OF THE LEASE WAS A TRADE FIXTURE WHICH COULD BE REMOVED BY THE TENANT OR A PERMANENT FIXTURE WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO CONFINEMENT UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND TREATMENT ACT (SOMTA) AFTER COMPLETION OF HIS SENTENCE, HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
REMOVING PORTABLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1), DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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

Insurer Did Not Demonstrate, as a Matter of Law, the Denials of Claims Were... Lessee Who Has Authority to Control the Work Is Liable Under the Labor Law