You are here: / / Once the Insurer Shows an Exclusion to Coverage Applies, the Burden is...

Once the Insurer Shows an Exclusion to Coverage Applies, the Burden is on the Insured to Demonstrate an Exception to the Exclusion Applies

In finding the insurer was properly awarded summary judgment, the Second Department explained the burdens of proof re: exclusions from coverage (burden on insurer) and exceptions to exclusions from coverage (burden on insured):

“In determining a dispute over insurance coverage, we first look to the language of the policy” … . Although the insurer has the burden of proving the applicability of an exclusion …, it is the insured’s burden to establish the existence of coverage … . Thus, “[where] the existence of coverage depends entirely on the applicability of [an] exception to the exclusion, the insured has the duty of demonstrating that it has been satisfied” … .

The defendant [insurer] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating the applicability of an exclusion in the plaintiff’s policy … . … [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the applicability of an exception to the exclusion … . Copacabana Realty, LLC v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 06106, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A RODRIGUEZ HEARING BASED UPON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION THE COMPLAINANT AND THE DEFENDANT KNEW EACH OTHER, THE TRIAL TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE COMPLAINANT AND DEFENDANT IN FACT KNEW EACH OTHER; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRES THAT THE IDENTIFICATION ISSUE BE RESOLVED BEFORE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AND INDICTED WHILE OUT ON BAIL; THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE REVOKING THE ORDER RELEASING DEFENDANT ON BAIL (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT),
UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION AS SANDOVAL EVIDENCE.
THE BANK DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN A YEAR AND DID NOT SUBMIT AN ADEQUATE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT; THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ACTION IS DEEMED ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof at Trial Did Not Sufficiently Pinpoint Time of the Alleged Sexual Offenses—Convictions Vacated
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FIRST DETERMINED WHETHER ANY DISTRIBUTEES OF THE DECEASED MORTGAGORS WERE NECESSARY PARTIES [RPAPL 1311 (1)] AND, IF SO, SUMMON THEM PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 [b]; THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD NOT 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

Best Interest of the Incapacitated Person Justified Removal of Guardian of Person... Most Important Among the Criteria for Allowing a Late Notice of Claim Is the...