You are here: / / Plaintiff Did Not Affirmatively Demonstrate Fire Was Not Intentionally...

Plaintiff Did Not Affirmatively Demonstrate Fire Was Not Intentionally Set by Merely Challenging the Insurer’s Arson Investigation—Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied—Proof Burdens at Summary Judgment Stage Explained

The Third Department determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in its breach of contract action against the insurer. Plaintiff’s restaurant was destroyed by fire. The insurer disclaimed coverage on the ground that the fire had been intentionally set. Plaintiff brought a summary judgment motion seeking the dismissal of the insurer’s affirmative defense (arson) and judgment in its favor on liability. The court explained the relevant proof burdens re: the affirmative defense of arson at the summary judgment stage:

As the movant, plaintiff was required to initially demonstrate “the absence of genuine issues of material fact on every relevant issue raised by the pleadings, including any affirmative defenses” … . Upon the affirmative defense of arson, if plaintiff, as the insured, met its initial burden, the burden would then shift to defendant, as the insurer. Although defendant’s ultimate burden of proving the affirmative defense at trial would be by the standard of clear and convincing evidence …, this strict standard is not applied at this juncture. Assuming that plaintiff met its initial burden to demonstrate that the fire was not intentionally set and that plaintiff had no motive to commit arson, to defeat the summary judgment motion defendant was merely required to demonstrate “that plaintiff’s premises may have been damaged by arson and that plaintiff may have had a motive to see the property destroyed by fire” … . Importantly, “[e]vidence of motive and incendiary origin without more is sufficient to defeat an insured’s motion for summary judgment in an action on its fire insurance policy” … .

Plaintiff failed to offer evidence to establish that the fire had not been intentionally set and, instead, merely challenged the validity of defendant’s investigation, arguing that the evidence failed to affirmatively establish that the fire had been deliberately set. Morley Maples, Inc. v Dryden Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 06395, 3rd Dept 7-30-15

 

You might also like
PETITIONER HELD HIMSELF OUT AS THE FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKER OF THE BUSINESS AND THE TAX TRIBUNAL PROPERLY FOUND PETITIONER WAS PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR UNPAID EMPLOYEE WITHHOLDING TAXES; THE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THAT PETITIONER WAS NOT THE FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKER AND WAS PUT IN CHARGE ONLY TO ALLOW THE BUSINESS TO BE CERTIFIED AS A MINORITY BUSINESS-ENTERPRISE; THE IRS IN A PARALLEL PROCEEDING HAD ABSOLVED PETITIONER OF LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
THE USE OF THE TERM “VICTIM” TO REFER TO THE COMPLAINING WITNESS AT TRIAL WHERE THE WITNESS’S CREDIBILITY IS IN ISSUE SHOULD BE AVOIDED (THIRD DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DIMSISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (THIRD DEPT).
DAUGHTER’S PETITION TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN FOR HER MOTHER, WHO HAS DEMENTIA AND ALZHEIMER’S, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
DESPITE HAVING MADE A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON THE INSTANT MOTION WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT BY HIS ATTORNEY WHO ACKNOWLEDGED HE TOLD DEFENDANT A GUILTY PLEA WOULD NOT RESULT IN DEPORTATION (THIRD DEPT).
SECURITY OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYEES OF PLACEMENT SERVICE.
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE ON BEHALF OF THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT KNOWINGLY CONSENT AND DID NOT MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THE PROSECUTION; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Defendants Assumed a Duty of Reasonable Care When Escorting Elderly Plaintiff to His Car at Night

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

Petitioner-Teacher Never Consented to an “Out of Area” Assignment—Therefore... Verified Statement Demonstrated Site Contractor’s Improper Use of Funds...