You are here: / / OPERATIVE DATE FOR POLICY COVERAGE WAS THE DATE THE POWER GENERATING TURBINE...

OPERATIVE DATE FOR POLICY COVERAGE WAS THE DATE THE POWER GENERATING TURBINE WAS TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE, EVEN THOUGH THE DAMAGE WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE SHUT DOWN HAPPENED BEFORE THE POLICY PERIOD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the loss of a power-generating turbine was covered by the insurance policy even though the damage preceded the policy period. The turbine was taken out of service when a crack triggered a shut-down. Even though the crack occurred prior to the shut-down and lengthened over time, the operative date was when the turbine was taken out of service:

​

[The power company] makes a claim under the subject insurance policy for coverage of losses that resulted when a power-generating turbine (Unit 30) … was taken out of operation on September 12, 2008 (during the policy period), due to excessive vibrations. The vibrations were found to have been caused by a nine-inch crack in Unit 30’s rotor. Unit 30 functioned according to an alarm and trip system, with protocols established when the policy was underwritten. According to these protocols, Unit 30 was functioning properly until September 12, 2008, notwithstanding that the crack had begun to form before the inception of the policy period; moreover, it is undisputed that the crack had continued to lengthen during the policy period. Therefore, the loss occurred on September 12, 2008 – the discrete event of physical loss or damage triggering the time element coverage – when the unit was taken out of operation due to the excessive vibrations, and [the power company’s] property sustained a physical loss or damage during the policy period. Since there is no provision in the policy that excludes physical loss or damage originating prior to the commencement of the policy period, the policy covers the loss … . National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v TransCanada Energy USA, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06513, 1st Dept 9-19-17

INSURANCE LAW (OPERATIVE DATE FOR POLICY COVERAGE WAS THE DATE THE POWER GENERATING TURBINE WAS TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE, EVEN THOUGH THE DAMAGE WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO THE SHUT DOWN HAPPENED BEFORE THE POLICY PERIOD (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Failure to Strictly Comply with the Statutory Requirements for the Contents of a Parking Ticket Invalidates the Ticket
HERE THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NON-SIGNATORY AND THE PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT WARRANTED FINDING THAT THE NON-SIGNATORY WAS BOUND BY THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE UNDERLYING CONVICTION; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE SEARCH WAS NOT INCIDENT TO ARREST AS THE SUPPRESSION COURT RULED, CASE REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATE GROUND FOR A VALID SEARCH WHICH WAS ARGUED BUT NOT RULED UPON BELOW. ​
ALTHOUGH CPLR 2104 DOES NOT APPLY TO STIPULATIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS, THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF, IN WHICH HE AGREED TO RETIRE IN RETURN FOR THE CESSATION OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, WAS ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF HEART (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS BORN TWO YEARS BEFORE HIS MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED, WAS A DISTRIBUTEE OF HIS FATHER’S ESTATE; IT HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED WHETHER DEFENDANT YOUSEF FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTED HE WAS THE SOLE HEIR WHEN HE TRANSFERRED REAL PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT BASMANOV (FIRST DEPT).
NOTES TAKEN BY AN OBSERVER HIRED BY PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO WITNESS AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF BY DEFENDANTS’ DOCTOR ARE PRIVILEGED AS MATERIAL PREPARED FOR TRIAL, THE OBSERVER WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY (FIRST DEPT).
CHARACTER IN A MOVIE BASED UPON A SHORT STORY WAS IDENTIFIABLE AS PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION AGAINST THE MAKERS OF THE MOVIE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS DUPLICATED FRAUD ALLEGATIONS, FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD... DEFENDANT, AN ATTORNEY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FROM REPRESENTING...