You are here: / / TENANT’S INSURANCE POLICY NAMED THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AS AN ADDITIONAL...
,

TENANT’S INSURANCE POLICY NAMED THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED, PLAINTIFF FELL ON A STAIRCASE IN AN AREA NOT LEASED TO THE TENANT, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT RECOVER UNDER THE ADDITIONAL INSURED PROVISION OF THE TENANT’S POLICY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injury from a fall on a staircase was not covered by the “additional insured” provision of the subject policy. Yeshiva leased property in a building owned by Beth Medrash. Beth Medrash was listed as an additional insured in Yeshiva’s insurance policy. The staircase where plaintiff fell was not leased by Yeshiva:

The additional insured provision named Beth Medrash as an additional insured “only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to [the Yeshiva].” The phrase “arising out of” requires “only that there be some causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which coverage is provided” … . “An insurer does not wish to be liable for losses arising from risks associated with . . . premises for which the insurer has not evaluated the risk and received a premium” … . Moreover, “unambiguous provisions of an insurance contract must be given their plain and ordinary meaning”… . The interpretation of policy language is a question of law for the court … .

On his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, that the policy provided coverage to Beth Medrash as an additional insured for his injury. It is undisputed that the Yeshiva did not lease the staircase the plaintiff was descending when he fell, and that the plaintiff was not a student or invitee of the Yeshiva at the time of the accident. Therefore, there was no causal relationship between the plaintiff’s injury and the risk for which coverage was provided … . Consequently, the plaintiff’s injury was not a bargained-for risK … . Lissauer v GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins., 2018 NY Slip Op 03522, Second Dept 5-16-18

​INSURANCE LAW (TENANT’S INSURANCE POLICY NAMED THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED, PLAINTIFF FELL ON A STAIRCASE IN AN AREA NOT LEASED TO THE TENANT, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT RECOVER UNDER THE ADDITIONAL INSURED PROVISION OF THE TENANT’S POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (INSURANCE LAW, TENANT’S INSURANCE POLICY NAMED THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED, PLAINTIFF FELL ON A STAIRCASE IN AN AREA NOT LEASED TO THE TENANT, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT RECOVER UNDER THE ADDITIONAL INSURED PROVISION OF THE TENANT’S POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/ADDITIONAL INSURED (LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT’S INSURANCE POLICY NAMED THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED, PLAINTIFF FELL ON A STAIRCASE IN AN AREA NOT LEASED TO THE TENANT, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT RECOVER UNDER THE ADDITIONAL INSURED PROVISION OF THE TENANT’S POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (LANDLORD-TENANT, INSURANCE LAW, TENANT’S INSURANCE POLICY NAMED THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED, PLAINTIFF FELL ON A STAIRCASE IN AN AREA NOT LEASED TO THE TENANT, PLAINTIFF COULD NOT RECOVER UNDER THE ADDITIONAL INSURED PROVISION OF THE TENANT’S POLICY (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION SIGNATURES WERE GATHERED BEFORE THE DEADLINE SET BY THE COVID-19-RELATED EXECUTIVE ORDER BUT THE SIGNATURES WERE WITNESSED AFTER THE DEADLINE; THE SIGNATURES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE SUPPORTED DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING THE DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE OF PROCESS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, ALTHOUGH HE WAS INFORMED THE SENTENCE PROMISE WAS CONDITIONED UPON NO FURTHER ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED TWICE BEFORE SENTENCING AND AN ENHANCED SENTENCE, INCLUDING POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, WAS IMPOSED; PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY; ERROR APPEALABLE DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).
Record-Keeping Was a Condition Precedent to Insurance Coverage
Failure to Identify Industrial Code Violation in Pleadings Not Fatal/Supervisory Criteria for Labor Law 200(1) Action Explained
INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE CONSTITUTED A CONCRETE PREDICATE FOR A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ALLEGED INJURY DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A “PROTECTOR” ON A GRINDER.

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

RECOVERY FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION FOR INJURY... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1)...