You are here: / / PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S...

PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined coverage for a slip and fall of a security company (Protection Plus) employer was not available to the property owner (Manhattan School) as an additional insured on the security company’s policy. the security guard slipped and fell on a recently mopped floor at the school:

Plaintiff Manhattan School is an additional named insured under a policy issued by defendant to nonparty Protection Plus Security Corporation. In an additional insured endorsement, the policy provides that the Manhattan School is an additional named insured “only with respect to liability for bodily injury’. . . caused, in whole or in part, by” the acts or omissions of Protection Plus in the performance of its operations for the Manhattan School.

When “an insurance policy is restricted to liability for any bodily injury caused, in whole or in part,’ by the acts or omissions’ of the named insured, the coverage applies to injury proximately caused by the named insured” … . Such language in a policy does not equate to “but for” causation and is not the same as policies containing the phrase, “arising out of” … . Fundamentally, ” arising out of’ is not the functional equivalent of proximately caused by'”… . Thus, it is not enough to merely establish a causal link to the injury.

Notably, the language in the endorsement was “intended to provide coverage for an additional insured’s vicarious or contributory negligence, and to prevent coverage for the additional insured’s sole negligence” … .

Accordingly, when a policy limits coverage to an injury “caused, in whole or part” by the “acts or omissions” of the named insured, coverage is extended to an additional insured only when the damages are the result of the named insured’s negligence or some other act or omission … .

Here, the acts or omissions of Protection Plus were not a proximate cause of the security guard’s injury. Rather, the sole proximate cause of the injury was the additional insured, and thus coverage is not available to the Manhattan School under defendant’s policy … . Hanover Ins. Co. v Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 02121, First Dept 3-27-18

INSURANCE LAW (PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT))/ADDITIONAL INSURED (INSURANCE LAW, PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Erasure of Audio Recording Constituted Negligent Spoliation of Evidence Under New York Common Law—No Need to Turn to Federal Law Re: Preservation of Electronically Stored Information
THE COMPLAINT, STEMMING FROM A FALL OFF A STRETCHER WHILE BEING POSITIONED FOR AN X-RAY, SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS THEREFORE UNTIMELY, PROPOSED NEGLIGENT HIRING CAUSE OF ACTION COULD NOT BE ADDED UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT CHARGING FORCIBLE TOUCHING DID NOT ALLEGE THE APPLICATION OF PRESSURE AS AN ELEMENT OF THE TOUCHING RENDERING THE COMPLAINT LEGALLY INSFUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).
Statutory Privilege Afforded Emergency Vehicles (Imposing a “Reckless Disregard” Standard for Accident-LiabilIty) Is Not Dependent Upon Whether the Emergency Lights and Siren Were Activated
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF INFORMATION POSTED ON FACEBOOK SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
FOOTAGE FROM A POLICE OFFICER’S BODY-WORN CAMERA IS NOT A PERSONNEL RECORD AND THEREFORE IS NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-a (FIRST DEPT).
Effect of “Notwithstanding” Clause; Criteria for Reformation of Contract
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL; THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFECT WAS ONE-INCH IN HEIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL... ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT WAS NOT MARRIED TO THE TENANT OF RECORD, THEIR RELATIONSHIP...