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)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED TO HAVE READ THE INFORMATION WHICH WAS HYPERLINKED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED TO HAVE AGREED TO ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT).
WHISTLEBLOWER CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIMELY UNDER THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE AND DID NOT WAIVE THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW GENDER DISCRIMINATION CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING 20 INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF CONTEMPT WAS DUPLICITOUS, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT WHICH RENTED OUT THE AERIAL LIFT WHICH MALFUNCTIONED WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO CONTROL OVER THE WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION, HOWEVER, PROPERLY SURVIVED (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Should Have Been Allowed to Voluntarily Discontinue Lawsuit
WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIED TO GRAVEL PILED NEAR A MANHOLE, ACTION BY BICYCLIST INJURED WHEN HIS WHEEL STRUCK THE GRAVEL PROPERLY DISMISSED.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST 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

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