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
30-DAY TIME TO APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ALL PARTIES IS TRIGGERED BY THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF ENTRY BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A MEMBER OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHEN HE STARTED THE LAWSUIT ASSERTING DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION, HE LOST STANDING TO CONTINUE WITH THE SUIT AFTER WITHDRAWING HIS MEMBERSHIP IN THE LLC (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE TOOK ON THE APPEARANCE OF AN ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTION IN QUESTIONING WITNESSES; ROBBERY CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY’S DELAY IN NOTIFYING THE NEXT OF KIN OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF DECEDENT’S BODY AND THE LOCATION OF DECEDENT’S REMAINS ENTITLES THE NEXT OF KIN TO DAMAGES PURSUANT TO THE COMMON-LAW RIGHT OF SEPULCHER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT COMMITTED CRIMES IN ONE COUNTY AND LED THE POLICE ON A CAR CHASE WHICH ENDED IN ANOTHER COUNTY; SOME OF THE CHARGES STEMMED FROM THE CAR CHASE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT THE PEOPLE HAD GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION OVER ALL THE COUNTS IF THE PEOPLE HAD JURISDICTION OVER ONE COUNT (SECOND DEPT).
No Private Right of Action for Homeowners Against Lenders Under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)—Home Affordable Modification Program Was Not Enacted Solely for the Benefit of Homeowners(?)
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION, ANY DEFICIENCIES IN PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S CERTIFICATE OF MERIT (CPLR 3012-B) CAN NOT BE THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING (SECOND DEPT).
A LANDLORD WHO SEEKS TO RETAIN PART OF A TENANT’S SECURITY DEPOSIT MUST PROVIDE THE TENANT WITH AN ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF THE DAMAGE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE VACATION OF THE PROPERTY; HERE THE ITEMIZED STATEMENT WAS SIX DAYS LATE, PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE LANDLORD (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
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...