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
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).
PROOF THE ELEVATOR DOOR MALFUNCTIONED WHEN PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO ENTER THE ELEVATOR DID NOT SUPPORT A PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT FROM A CELL PHONE PICTURE TAKEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AT THE POLICE STATION WERE UNDULY SUGGESTIVE; THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST AND THE EVIDENCE SEIZED SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF-TENANT’S COMPLAINT ALLEGED DEFENDANT-LANDLORD’S STIPULATION WITH THE PRIOR TENANT IN 2000 ILLEGALLY DECONTROLLED THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
TENANTS AND THE PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FURNITURE BLOWN OFF A 12TH STORY TERRACE BY WIND (FIRST DEPT). ​
Late Amendment of Complaint (After Note of Issue Filed) Should Have Been Granted
THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL OUTSIDE, NOT IN A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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...