You are here: / / POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND.

POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND.

The Second Department determined the “insured versus insured” policy exclusion was ambiguous and therefore could not be the basis for declaring the insurer, Princeton, did not have a duty to defend in this slip and fall case. Here an employee of one insured sued the company which owned the land, which was also insured by Princeton. The Second Department held it was not clear whether the plaintiff employee was an “insured” within the meaning of the exclusion:

“To be relieved of its duty to defend on the basis of a policy exclusion, the insurer bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint [in the underlying action] cast the pleadings wholly within that exclusion, that the exclusion is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and that there is no possible factual or legal basis upon which the insurer may eventually be held obligated to indemnify the insured under any policy provision” … . “[I]f the language is doubtful or uncertain in its meaning, any ambiguity will be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer”… .

Here, Princeton disclaimed coverage based upon the “Insured Versus Insured” exclusion, which excluded “[a]ny claim’ made by or for the benefit of, or in the name or right of, one current or former insured against another current or former insured.” As it is not clear from the language of the exclusion at issue whether [plaintiff], as an employee, was an “insured” as that term was defined in the policy … , the provisions are ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation … . Boro Park Land Co., LLC v Princeton Excess Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 04684, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND)/EXCLUSION, POLICY (INSURANCE LAW, POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND)/DUTY TO DEFEND (INSURANCE LAW, POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND)

You might also like
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FIRST DETERMINED WHETHER ANY DISTRIBUTEES OF THE DECEASED MORTGAGORS WERE NECESSARY PARTIES [RPAPL 1311 (1)] AND, IF SO, SUMMON THEM PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 [b]; THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Abutting-Property-Owners Not Responsible for Defects in Sidewalk Tree Wells/City Did Not Have Written Notice of Defect in Tree Well Where Plaintiff Fell
FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE EXPERT, AFFIDAVIT FROM EXPERT PROPERLY CONSIDERED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFECT FOUND TO BE TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, PRESENCE IS NOT ENOUGH 2ND DEPT.
THE NEGATIVE CHARACTER TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY STRUCK, NOT BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE IS GENERALLY INADMISSIBLE, BUT BECAUSE THE WITNESS WAS ONLY FAMILIAR WITH THE DEFENDANT’S CHARACTER IN THE WORKPLACE, WHICH WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ALLEGED SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH A CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S SEX AND AGE DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTIONS, AS WELL AS A RETALIATION CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST CITY REQUIRES A NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT TO ADD A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION UNDER FEDERAL LAW, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO INFORM INSURER OF A SETTLEMENT WITH THE INSURED PARTY IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE JUSTIFIED GRANTING THE INSURER’S PETITION TO PERMANENTLY STAY ARBITRATION ON AN UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK... MOTHER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED, MOTHER INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSULT...