You are here: / / EXCLUSION FOR INJURY DURING UNLOADING AN INSURED TRAILER APPLIED, EVEN ...

EXCLUSION FOR INJURY DURING UNLOADING AN INSURED TRAILER APPLIED, EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE TRAILER.

The First Department determined an exclusion from plaintiff’s “Truckers Policy” issued to Truck-Rite was unambiguous. The policy excluded coverage for injury arising out of loading and unloading trailers covered by the policy. Plaintiff was unloading a trailer when the trailer’s lift gate collapsed. Despite the fact that the injury was caused by a defective part of the trailer, the injury was not covered by the policy:

“Policy exclusions are subject to strict construction and must be read narrowly, and any ambiguities in the insurance policy are to be construed against the insurer. However, unambiguous provisions of insurance contracts will be given their plain and ordinary meaning” … .

“In the context of a policy exclusion, the phrase arising out of is unambiguous, and is interpreted broadly to mean originating from, incident to, or having connection with'” … . To determine the applicability of an “arising out of” exclusion, the Court of Appeals had adopted a “but for” test … . This test is defined as follows “[I]f the plaintiff in an underlying action or proceeding alleges the existence of facts clearly falling within such an exclusion, and none of the causes of action that he or she asserts could exist but for the existence of the excluded activity or state of affairs, the insurer is under no obligation to defend the action”… .

Here, the underlying plaintiff’s accident occurred while he was unloading material from a shipping trailer, an activity clearly encompassed by the exclusion. The fact that his injury was allegedly caused by the defective nature of the trailer lift does not remove the injury from the policy exclusion. “[T]he focus of the inquiry is not on the precise cause of the accident but the general nature of the operation in the course of which the injury was sustained'” … . “[T]he phrase arising out of’ . . . requires only that there be some causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which coverage is provided” … . Such a causal relationship between the injury and exclusion clearly exists here and requires dismissal of the complaint. Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Excelsior Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 00718, 1st Dept 2-2-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (EXCLUSION FOR INJURY DURING UNLOADING AN INSURED TRAILER APPLIED, EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE TRAILER)/EXCLUSIONS (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION FOR INJURY DURING UNLOADING AN INSURED TRAILER APPLIED, EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE TRAILER)

/by
You might also like
NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST INDIVIDUAL COOPERATIVE BOARD MEMBERS, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN A CORPORATE TORT (FIRST DEPT).
Misrepresentations, Distortions, Attacks on the Court, Etc., Included in Motion Papers Warranted Sanctions Against Attorney
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS’ JANITORIAL SCHEDULE WAS MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHICH PRECLUDES DEFENDANTS’ LIABILITY; PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Sworn Juror Who Was From the Same Neighborhood as Defendant Stated His Fear of Drug Dealers Would Prevent Him from Reaching an Impartial Verdict—the Juror Was Properly Discharged as “Grossly Unqualified” and “For Cause” Based Upon a Newly Discovered Ground
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE OF DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS TO PROPERLY PREPARE THE EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT RESULTED IN THE WITNESS’S INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY AT TRIAL AND A DEFENSE VERDICT; ARGUING THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT ABSENT THE ATTORNEYS’ MALPRACTICE IS TOO SPECULATIVE TO SUPPORT A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ONLY CONNECTION TO THE CORPORATION WHICH HAD CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK WAS HIS SALARY; THEREFORE THE CORPORATION’S NEW YORK CONTACTS COULD NOT BE IMPUTED TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
Detention and Frisk of Juvenile Supported by Reasonable Suspicion
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD BY DEFENSE COUNSEL WHEN HE PLED GUILTY IN 2007 THAT IF HE STAYED OUT OF TROUBLE WHILE ON PROBATION HE WOULD NOT BE DEPORTED, HOWEVER DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE WAS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE GONE TO TRIAL, INCLUDING HIS UNDISPUTED STRONG DESIRE TO STAY IN THE US, EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

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

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NONMONETARY SETTLEMENT OF A SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTION SUIT APPROVED,... CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY...