You are here: / / BROKER NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE INSURANCE TO COVER INJURY TO CONSTRUCTION...

BROKER NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE INSURANCE TO COVER INJURY TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, BROKER HAD NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE GAP IN COVERAGE, $6,000,000 VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CONSTRUCTION WORKER NOT COVERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the action against the insurance broker, alleging the broker failed to procure the necessary insurance, was properly dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when he fell off a ladder and obtained a more than $6,000,000 verdict against the property owner. The property owner’s insurance included an exclusion of coverage for construction workers. The broker had sent a letter to the property owner alerting the owner to the exclusion and stating that such coverage could be purchased:

​

At best, plaintiff established that [the property owner] made a generalized request for liability coverage, and it is well-settled that such a generalized request is insufficient to satisfy the requirement that a specific request for a particular type of coverage be made … . …

​

Even assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff submitted sufficient proof demonstrating the existence of a special relationship [between the property owner and the defendant broker], the record demonstrates that defendant fulfilled any corresponding duty of advisement that it may have owed to plaintiff’s assignors based upon defendant’s unambiguous letter advising [the property owner], in writing, that additional insurance coverage for injuries to construction workers was available and could be procured upon request …  and [the property owner’s] testimony that he was aware that injuries to construction workers were specifically excluded from the policy that he purchased. Because the record is devoid of any specific request for such additional coverage ever having been made … , we find that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it was appropriately granted … . Cromer v Rosenzweig Ins. Agency Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08926, Third Dept 12-21-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (BROKER NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE INSURANCE TO COVER INJURY TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, BROKER HAD NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE GAP IN COVERAGE, $6,000,000 VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CONSTRUCTION WORKER NOT COVERED (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (INSURANCE LAW, BROKER NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE INSURANCE TO COVER INJURY TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, BROKER HAD NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE GAP IN COVERAGE, $6,000,000 VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CONSTRUCTION WORKER NOT COVERED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS INFORMED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL OF A PLEA OFFER WHICH WAS MORE LENIENT THAN THE OFFER TO WHICH HE PLED (THIRD DEPT).
Commissioner’s Finding Site Constituted a Significant Threat to Public Health or Environment Upheld
ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT ON UPSTATE LAND WITHIN THE NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROPERLY DISMISSED; UNIQUE LAW RE: MODIFICATION OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT EXPLAINED.
Work for Which Claimant Was Not Paid Did Not Disqualify Her from Unemployment Insurance Benefits
IN THIS CPLR ARTICLE 4 PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE RESPONDENT NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION VIOLATED ITS FIDUCIARY DUTY AND THE NOT-FOR-PROFIT-CORPORATION LAW WITH RESPECT TO ITS AFFILIATE NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS AND WHETHER THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE APPLIED (THIRD DEPT).
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cause of Action Stated Against Actuary
NON-SECURE JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS STRUCK BY A CAR DRIVEN BY A FORMER RESIDENT OF THE FACILITY.
THE 3RD DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO INSERT AN ORDER FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN; APPEAL DISMISSED (THIRD 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

FACT THAT FATHER’S SISTER WORKED FOR ST LAWRENCE COUNTY DSS (SLCDSS) DID... THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE AGENCY WHICH PLACED A BABY IN A FOSTER HOME...