You are here: / / FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE...

FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.

The Second Department noted that the loss at issue, the collapse of a retaining wall caused by run-off water, was the subject of a policy exclusion, an issue about which there was no dispute. Plaintiff argued the insurer’s disclaimer letter was ineffective because it did not identify the precise ground upon which the disclaimer was ultimately based. The Second Department, applying common law waiver and estoppel principles, rejected the argument because the failure to disclaim based upon an exclusion will not give rise to coverage which does not exist:

… [T]he defendants’ failure to specifically identify the flood and surface water exclusions in its disclaimer letter must be considered under common-law waiver and/or estoppel principles … .

Waiver, which is a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, does not apply here because “the failure to disclaim based on an exclusion will not give rise to coverage that does not exist” … . Under the principles of estoppel, an insurer, though in fact not obligated to provide coverage, may be precluded from denying coverage upon proof that the insurer “by its conduct, otherwise lulled [the insured] into sleeping on its rights under the insurance contract” … . Estoppel requires proof that the insured has suffered prejudice by virtue of the insurer’s conduct … . Because the plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing of prejudice, there was no basis to estop the defendants from relying on policy exclusions not detailed in their letter disclaiming coverage. Provencal, LLC v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 02644, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

INSURANCE LAW (FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST)/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST)EXCLUSIONS FROM INSURANCE COVERAGE (FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST)

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM HIM OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILITY PLEA AND FOR FAILING TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE FOIL REQUESTS REQUIRED THE RESPONDENT TO CREATE NEW DOCUMENTS, THE REQUESTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Court Participation in Testimony Read-Back Is Error
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTIFF PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE DELAY IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THE MERITS WERE NOT DESCRIBED, AND THE EXISTENCE OF PREJUDICE WAS NOT REBUTTED, HOWEVER THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ABSENT THE SUBSTITUTION OF A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR LABOR LAW ACTION AGAINST CITY NOT PREEMPTED BY LONGSHOREMAN’S AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT.
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, INCLUDING THE “SINGLE ENVELOPE” RULE (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER MOTHER CONSENTED TO A NEGLECT FINDING AND THE CHILD WAS PLACED IN KINSHIP FOSTER CARE, MOTHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITHOUT A HEARING 2ND DEPT.
FEDERAL TAX RETURNS AND EMAILS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211 (A)(1); THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 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

THE FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION... BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND...