You are here: / / HERE DISCLAIMERS WERE UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY WHICH LED TO INJURY...

HERE DISCLAIMERS WERE UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY WHICH LED TO INJURY WAS NOT WITHIN THE OVERALL SCOPE OF THE POLICY-COVERAGE; HAD THE DISCLAIMERS BEEN BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION FROM COVERAGE, AS OPPOSED TO THE OVERALL SCOPE OF THE COVERAGE, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN INVALID AS UNTIMELY.

The First Department determined the declarations page of defendant's insurance policy described what the policy covered, not exclusions from what otherwise would be covered. The distinction was crucial because the insurer was late in disclaiming coverage. If the disclaimers had been based upon an exclusion from coverage, the disclaimers would have been invalid as untimely. But because the disclaimers were based on the scope of the coverage of the policy, the disclaimers were unnecessary. Here it was deemed that injury from falling concrete during demolition of a chimney was outside the scope of the policy, which was limited to: (1) carpentry — interior … ; (2) dry wall or wallboard Installation” … ; (3) contractors — subcontracted work — in connection with construction, reconstruction, repair or erection of buildings  … ; and (4) contractors — subcontracted work — in connection with construction, reconstruction, repair or erection of buildings  … uninsured/underinsured … :

“Disclaimer pursuant to section 3420(d) [now § 3420(d)(2)] is unnecessary when a claim falls outside the scope of the policy's coverage portion. Under those circumstances, the insurance policy does not contemplate coverage in the first instance, and requiring payment of a claim upon failure to timely disclaim would create coverage where it never existed. By contrast, disclaimer pursuant to section 3420(d) is necessary when denial of coverage is based on a policy exclusion without which the claim would be covered” … .

… [T]he subject policy's classification limitations of coverage merely define the activities that were included within the scope of coverage “in the first instance” … and do not constitute exclusions from coverage that would otherwise exist. Stated otherwise, the relevant policy language of … the declarations page states the activities that are covered. If the loss in question did not arise from activities within the classifications set forth on the declarations page, then coverage is lacking “by reason of lack of inclusion” … , and “the policy as written could not have covered the liability in question under any circumstances” … . Black Bull Contr., LLC v Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 00002, 1st Dept 1-5-16

INSURANCE LAW (NO DISCLAIMER NECESSARY WHERE INJURY CAUSED BY ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE POLICY)/DISCLAIMERS (INSURANCE LAW, NO DISCLAIMER NECESSARY WHERE INJURY CAUSED BY ACTIVITY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE POLICY)/EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE (INSURANCE LAW, IF AN INSURER SEEKS TO ENFORCE A POLICY EXCLUSION, TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIRED)/DISCLAIMERS (IF AN INSURER SEEKS TO ENFORCE A POLICY EXCLUSION, TIMELY DISCLAIMER IS REQUIRED)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, HE HAD BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN 120 CASES; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISQUALIFIED HIM (FIRST DEPT).
No Need to Allege “the Benefit Was Conferred at the Behest of the Defendant”
THE PEOPLE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WARRANTED A SUPPRESSION HEARING BUT ARGUED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED BECAUSE THE ORDER DENYING A SUPPRESSION HEARING INCLUDED THE PHRASE “WITH LEAVE TO RENEW UPON A SHOWING OF SUFFICIENT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS” RENDERING THE ORDER NONFINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT NO OTHER EVIDENCE CAME TO LIGHT WHICH COULD HAVE SUPPORTED A RENEWAL MOTION; THE ORDER WAS THEREFORE DEEMED FINAL AND APPEALABLE (FIRST DEPT).
THE LANDLORD’S SUMMARY PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY BROUGHT IN SUPREME COURT BECAUSE COVID EXECUTIVE ORDERS PROHIBITED BRINGING THE ACTION IN CIVIL COURT; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS DEEMED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
PROOF THAT DEFENDANT WAS SERVED WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED ON DEBRIS AND FELL INTO A TWO-TO-THREE-FOOT-DEEP PIT FROM WHICH THE PLYWOOD COVER HAD BEEN REMOVED TRIGGERING POTENTIAL LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY; TWO DEFENDANTS MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 FOR THE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR RETALIATORY TERMINATION CLAIM PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICES LAW 75-b.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ALLEGATIONS DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE APPLICABLE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROVISIONS, THE ALLEGATIONS DID STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE MORE PROTECTIVE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (CT APP).

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

JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT (ATTEMPTED MURDER)... ANONYMOUS 911 CALL COUPLED WITH POLICE OFFICER’S OBSERVATIONS PROVIDED...