You are here: / / LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE’S INSURANCE...

LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE’S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE.

The Second Department determined the complaint raised the reasonable possibility that plaintiff Cumberland Farms would be liable in a slip and fall case, even though the subject property had been leased to another. Therefore, Cumberland was entitled to summary judgment declaring the lessee's insurance carrier was obligated to defend Cumberland:

“A duty to defend is triggered by the allegations contained in the underlying complaint” … . “An insurer's duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises whenever the allegations of the complaint against the insured, liberally construed, potentially fall within the scope of the risks undertaken by the insurer” … . The duty remains “even though facts outside the four corners of [the] pleadings indicate that the claim may be meritless or not covered” … . Nonetheless, “an insurer can be relieved of its duty to defend if it establishes as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured under any policy provision” … .

… [T]he complaint in the underlying action alleged that Cumberland was negligent in its ownership, operation, control, and maintenance of the subject gas station. However, the defendants' submissions in support of their motion included evidence that Cumberland leased the gas station to Noori as a franchisee. Since Cumberland's liability, if any, may hinge on the scope of its obligations under the agreements entered into with Noori that established their franchisor/franchisee relationship, the allegations of the complaint in the underlying action suggest a reasonable possibility of coverage for Cumberland in the underlying action … . Cumberland Farms, Inc. v Tower Group, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02048, 2nd Dept 3-23-16

INSURANCE LAW (LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE'S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE)/DUTY TO DEFEND (INSURANCE LAW, LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE'S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE)

You might also like
DAMAGES FOR FRAUD SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED UPON OUT OF POCKET LOSS, NOT PROFITS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EARNED ABSENT THE FRAUD, EVEN THOUGH RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO MORE DAMAGES UNDER THE OUT OF POCKET RULE, NO RELIEF CAN BE AFFORDED TO THE NONAPPEALING PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION, DESPITE THE FACT THAT ONLY TWO OF THE 19 PLAINTIFFS RESIDED IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Intervention Described
BASED UPON THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THE IN CAMERA INTERVIEW OF THE STATUTORY-RAPE COMPLAINANT TO DETERMINE THE RELEVANCE OF HER PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY (A MATERIAL STAGE OF THIS PROCEEDING); DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT FOR WHICH NO 710.30 NOTICE WAS PROVIDED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF INTENT, MOTIVE, OR LACK OF MISTAKE WAS NOT RELEVANT TO STATUTORY RAPE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).
A PHOTOGRAPH DOWNLOADED FROM FACEBOOK ALLEGEDLY SHOWING DEFENDANT WEARING CLOTHES SIMILAR TO THE CLOTHES WORN BY THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMIITTED IN EVIDENCE; THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FORECLOSURE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER TRIAL BECAUSE THE BANK FAILED TO PROVE STANDING AND COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELLED AND DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE, RELIEF DEFENDANT HAD NOT REQUESTED (SECOND DEPT).
ANALYTICAL CRITERIA FOR MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION, WHERE DEFENDANT SUBMITS EVIDENCE, CLEARLY EXPLAINED; PLAINTIFF IS NOT PENALIZED FOR NOT SUBMITTING EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION; BURDEN NEVER SHIFTS TO PLAINTIFF.

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

CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT EXPLAINED. BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT...