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
PROVIDING WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY OVER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION REQUIRED REVERSAL AND A NEW TRIAL, HOT LIQUID CAN BE A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF HIS FOREMAN WHEN INJURED BY AN IMPROPERLY HOISTED LOAD, HE COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
METROPOLITAN OPERA STAR’S NEGLIGENCE SUIT STEMMING FROM A FALL DURING A PERFORMANCE SURVIVED A MOTION DISMISS WHICH ARGUED SHE WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WAS HER ONLY REMEDY.
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT TO A NEWSPAPER WAS NOT LIBELOUS BECAUSE IT FELL WITHIN THE JUDICIAL PRIVILEGE, THE STATEMENT WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD TO REFER TO AN ALLEGATION IN A LAWSUIT (FIRST DEPT).
Proof that a Floor is Inherently Slippery, Standing Alone, Will Not Support a Negligence Cause of Action
A CLAIM WHICH ARISES AFTER THE FILING OF A BANKRUPTCY PETITION BELONGS TO THE DEBTOR, NOT TO THE BANKRUPCTY ESTATE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS SHOT INSIDE DEFENDANT’S BUILDING, DEFENDANT LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF AN ALLEGED BROKEN LOCK, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ASSAILANT WAS AN INTRUDER AS OPPOSED TO AN INVITED GUEST, AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS THE VICTIM OF A TARGETED ATTACK, DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REMOVED THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S (IP’S) SON AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HOLDING A TESTIMONIAL HEARING, CRITERIA FOR REMOVAL EXPLAINED (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

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