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
LAWSUIT SEEKING TO ENJOIN JUDICIAL SALARY INCREASES WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
ACTION BY YARD WASTE BUSINESS WAS A STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP), DEFAMATION AND RELATED CLAIMS AGAINST NEIGHBOR BASED ON STATEMENTS MADE BY THE NEIGHBOR ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE YARD WASTE BUSINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION HERE IS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (THIRD DEPT).
Records of a Police Investigation of a Police Officer Who Has Been Terminated Are Not “Personnel Records” Subject to Exemption from Disclosure Pursuant to the “Personnel Records” Provision of the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)
MISTRIAL BASED UPON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WAS PROPERLY GRANTED WITH DEFENDANT’S CONSENT; DOUBLE JEOPARDY DID NOT ATTACH (THIRD DEPT).
Parole Board Could Require No-Contact-with-Wife for One Year as a Condition
THE STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT PLAINTIFF WERE PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE; PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO SHOW THE STATEMENTS WERE MOTIVATED SOLELY BY MALICE; THE DEFAMATION ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE DETERMINATION PETITIONER-INMATE WAS GUILTY OF “CREATING A DISTURBANCE” (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 © 2026 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...