You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S...
,

ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S POLICY, THE INSURER HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SLIP AND FALL IN THE BUILDING PARKING LOT, THE LEASE DID NOT CALL FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT BY THE LESSEE.

The Second Department determined the insurer of a lessee had no duty to defend an action by plaintiff who slipped and fell in the parking lot of the building. The lease included no obligation to maintain the parking lot. Although the building owner was an additional insured on the lessee’s policy, the injury was not the result of a bargained-for risk:

An insurer’s duty to defend is “exceedingly broad”… . An additional insured is entitled to the same coverage as if it were a named insured … . “If any of the claims against an insured arguably arise from covered events, the insurer is required to defend the entire action” … . The phrase “arising out of” requires “only that there be some causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which coverage is provided” … . “[A]n insurer does not wish to be liable for losses arising from risks associated with a premises for which the insurer has not evaluated the risk and received a premium” … . Moreover, “[u]nambiguous provisions of an insurance contract must be given their plain and ordinary meaning” … . The interpretation of policy language is a question of law for the courts … .

Here, [the insurer] established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The additional insured endorsement unambiguously provided that [the building owner] was an additional insured for liability “arising out of” the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the “premises leased” to [lessee]. [The lessee] leased only a portion of the building from [the owner], not the parking lot where the accident occurred, and it had no duty to maintain the parking lot. As such, there was no causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which coverage was provided, and [plaintiff’s] injury was not a bargained-for risk … . Atlantic Ave. Sixteen AD, Inc. v Valley Forge Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04243, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S POLICY, THE INSURER HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SLIP AND FALL IN THE BUILDING PARKING LOT, THE LEASE DID NOT CALL FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT BY THE LESSEE)/LANDLORD-TENANT (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S POLICY, THE INSURER HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SLIP AND FALL IN THE BUILDING PARKING LOT, THE LEASE DID NOT CALL FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT BY THE LESSEE)/SLIP AND FALL (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S POLICY, THE INSURER HAD NO DUTY TO DEFEND AN ACTION STEMMING FROM A SLIP AND FALL IN THE BUILDING PARKING LOT, THE LEASE DID NOT CALL FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT BY THE LESSEE)

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, DESPITE THE PASSAGE OF SIX YEARS SINCE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE COURT DOES NOT EXAMINE THE MERITS OF THE PLEADING UNLESS THE LACK OF MERIT IS CLEAR AND FREE FROM DOUBT (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER OF POINTS WAS REDUCED BY THE CHANGE IN THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE RISK ASSESSMENT FROM “ARMED WITH A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT” (RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD) TO “INFLICTED PERSONAL INJURY,” DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO 10 DAYS NOTICE OF THE CHANGE (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT PROVIDED THAT THE PARTIES “SHALL” CONSULT EACH OTHER ON HEALTH DECISIONS FOR THE CHILD BUT FATHER HAD THE CHILD INOCULATED WITHOUT CONSULTING MOTHER; BECAUSE THE PARTIES AGREED THE CHILD WOULD ATTEND PUBLIC SCHOOL, AND INOCULATION IS REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, MOTHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS PREJUDICED BY THE BREACH OF THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT; THEREFORE MOTHER’S MOTION TO HOLD HUSBAND IN CONTEMPT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO OBTAIN COUNSEL WAS NOT MOOT, DESPITE THE FACT THE TRIAL WAS HELD AND COMPLETED IN PETITIONER’S ABSENCE; THE ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE AGAINST A TEACHER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO ADD DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONCERNING STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES TO PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH AN ALTERNATE; NO SHOWING JUROR WAS ‘UNAVAILABLE’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 270.35; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD’S IMMIGRANT VISA HAD BEEN LOST, THE PROOF DEMONSTRATED THAT THE CHILD MUST HAVE BEEN ISSUED THE APPROPRIATE VISA AND THAT, THEREFORE, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION OF A FOREIGN ADOPTION AND AN ORDER OF ADOPTION FOR THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STOCKING SHELVES WAS PART OF A LARGER RENOVATION PROJECT AND THEREFORE A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

REQUIREMENT THAT COVERAGE CANNOT BE DENIED UNLESS THE GROUND FOR THE DENIAL... PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER THAT SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT...