You are here: / / UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY LANGUAGE REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL...

UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY LANGUAGE REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO COVERAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined that the language of the policy which required a written contract with an additional insured (Gilbane JV) was unambiguous and precluded coverage:

The relevant portion of the Liberty policy is the “Additional Insured-By Written Contract” provision, which reads:

“WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amended to include as an insured any person or organization with whom you have agreed to add as an additional insured by written contract but only with respect to liability arising out of your operations or premises owned by or rented to you.”… . …

… [T]he endorsement would have the meaning Gilbane JV desires if the word “with” had been omitted. Omitting “with,” the phrase would read: “. . . any person or organization whom you have agreed by written contract to add . . .”, and Gilbane JV’s position would have merit. But [the general contractor] and Liberty included that preposition in the contract between them, and we must give it its ordinary meaning. Here, the “with” can only mean that the written contract must be “with” the additional insured. Gilbane Bldg. Co./TDX Constr. Corp. v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 02117, CtApp 3-27-18

INSURANCE LAW (UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY LANGUAGE REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO COVERAGE (CT APP))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, UNAMBIGUOUS POLICY LANGUAGE REQUIRED A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH ANY ADDITIONAL INSURED, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WRITTEN CONTRACT, THERE WAS NO COVERAGE (CT APP))

You might also like
THE ROADBLOCK VEHICLE-STOP WAS VALID; THE SEARCH BASED UPON AN ODOR OF MARIJUANA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALID UNDER THE MARIHUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) BUT THE COURT REFUSED TO APPLY THE MRTA RETROACTIVELY; ONE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGE TO PROHIBITING FELONS FROM OBTAINING GUN LICENSES HAD MERIT; THE OTHER DISSENT ARGUED THE ROADBLOCK PROCEDURE WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL (CT APP). ​
PETITIONER, A CORPORATION OPERATING A BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY, WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES, THEREFORE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO RPTL 704 (CT APP).
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539.
CITY OF NEW YORK CAN SUE IN NEGLIGENCE FOR DAMAGE TO CITY SIDEWALKS (CT APP).
A NYC LOCAL LAW REQUIRING REDUCTIONS IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM LARGE BUILDINGS IS NOT PREEMPTED BY THE STATE’S CLIMATE LEADERSHIP AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT (CT APP).
THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PRESENT A WITNESS TO THE GRAND JURY, AS REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, DID NOT RISE TO A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT, THEREFORE THE ISSUE DID NOT SURVIVE DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (CT APP).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL, DESPITE COUNSEL’S LIMITED COMMUNICATION WITH DEFENDANT, COUNSEL’S NOT ACTING UNTIL THE APPEAL WAS ON THE DISMISSAL CALENDAR, AND COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION OF A MINIMAL BRIEF WITH SIX LINES OF TEXT IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND NO CITATIONS TO THE RECORD, WHICH INCLUDED A 4000 PAGE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (CT APP)
THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE NAMES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES OF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO A TOWN’S ONLINE ALERT SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AS AN UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY (CT APP).

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

THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING... IN THIS LONG TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION CASE, THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE...