You are here: / / MASSIVE 750-FOOT TOWER CRANE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY NOT COVERED UNDER...
,

MASSIVE 750-FOOT TOWER CRANE DESTROYED BY HURRICANE SANDY NOT COVERED UNDER “TEMPORARY WORKS” CLAUSE IN INSURANCE POLICY.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, over a two-justice dissent (opinion by Justice Mazzarelli), determined that a massive 750-foot tower crane destroyed during Hurricane Sandy was not included in the policy-definition of “Temporary Works” and was included in a policy-exclusion for “contractor’s tools, machinery, plant and equipment.” Damage to the crane, therefore, was not covered:

The policy defines a temporary structure as something that is “incidental to the project.” Although the term incidental is not defined, “it is common practice for the courts of this State to refer to the dictionary to determine the plain and ordinary meaning of words to a contract” … .

Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term “incidental” as”[s]ubordinate to something of greater importance; having a minor role” (10th ed 2014]). The American Heritage Dictionary, defines incidental as “[o]f a minor, casual, or subordinate nature” (5th ed 2011]). The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the term “incidental” as “being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence” (11th ed 2003).

Applying these definitions, the 750-foot tower crane is not a structure that is “incidental” to the project. Indeed, rather than ensuing by chance or minor consequence … the “[b]uilding was specifically designed to incorporate the Tower Crane during construction” and the crane’s design and erection involved an “in-depth process” that had to be approved by a structural engineer. Moreover, once it was integrated into the structure of the building, the custom designed tower crane, rather than serving a minor or subordinate role, was used to lift items such as concrete slabs, structural steel and equipment, was integral and indispensable, not incidental, to the construction of the 74-story high-rise, which could not have been built without it. Accordingly, the tower crane does not fall within the policy’s definition of Temporary Works. Lend Lease (US) Constr. LMB Inc. v Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 09389, 1st Dept 12-22-15

INSURANCE LAW (DAMAGE TO MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION CRANE NOT COVERED BY TEMPORARY WORKS CLAUSE)/CONTRACT LAW (DAMAGE TO MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION CRANE NOT COVERED BY TEMPORARY WORKS CLAUSE IN POLICY)

You might also like
HOUSING AUTHORITY VIOLATED ITS OWN RULES AND EFFECTIVELY PREVENTED PETITIONER FROM MEETING THE PREREQUISITES FOR A HEARING ON HER REMAINING FAMILY MEMBER GRIEVANCE.
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT REGISTERED NURSE AND DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT GAVE PLAINTIFF THE APPROPRIATE DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS AFTER DISOVERING A LUMP IN PLAINTIFF’S BREAST CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTOR WHO COSIGNED THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT’S CHART SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CHART (FIRST DEPT).
STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF PROPERLY REDACTED FROM HOSPITAL RECORDS; EXPERT TESTIMONY DISCLOSED DAYS BEFORE TRIAL PROPERLY PRECLUDED.
THE DECISION TO ENFORCE ANIMAL CRUELTY AND OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS WHICH MAY PERTAIN TO THE RITUAL KILLING OF CHICKENS AS A RELIGIOUS PRACTICE IS DISCRETIONARY, THEREFORE A MANDAMUS ACTION TO ENFORCE THE LAWS DOES NOT LIE.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A 16-YEAR-OLD SOFTBALL PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF STEPPING IN A HOLE ON THE FIELD (FIRST DEPT).
AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT AVAILABLE WHERE A CONTRACT COVERS THE RELEVANT ISSUE, EVEN IF THE DEFENDANTS ARE NONSIGNATORIES; UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT A “CATCH ALL” CAUSE OF ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE CLUB AND THE SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CLUB COULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STREET IN FRONT OF THE CLUB, WHETHER THE CLUB WAS THE SPECIAL EMPLOYER OF THE BOUNCERS AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY, AND WHETHER THERE WAS DRAM SHOP ACT LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT). ​
SUIT SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT PAID TO DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, RELEVANT LAW EXPLAINED (FIRST 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

EVIDENCE OF HOW THE MURDER VICTIM FELT ABOUT DEFENDANT AND EVIDENCE OF STRIFE... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED STATUTE OF...