You are here: / / OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL...
,

OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE EMPLOYER’S POLICY, EMPLOYER FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BUT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE THE SLIP AND FALL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that Pioneer Middle School was not an additional insured under the policy which insured of the employer (Kleanerz) of Ayers, who slipped and fell on ice and snow in the Pioneer Middle School parking law:

We conclude that Pioneer is not an additional insured under the policy inasmuch as Ayers's injuries were not proximately caused by Kleanerz. The policy's additional insured endorsement provides that the injury must have been “caused, in whole or in part, by” Kleanerz's conduct, and thus it requires that the insured must have been a proximate cause of the injury, not merely a “but for” cause … . Here, it is undisputed that Kleanerz was not responsible for clearing ice and snow from the parking lot and that Ayers's fall resulted from her slipping on the ice or snow. Although Pioneer contends that Kleanerz caused the accident by instructing Ayers to exit Pioneer Middle School through a door located near the area where Ayers subsequently slipped, Kleanerz's instructions to Ayers “merely furnished the occasion for the injury” by “fortuitously plac[ing Ayers] in a location or position in which . . . [an alleged] separate instance of negligence acted independently upon [her] to produce harm” … , and were not a cause of the accident triggering the additional insured clause of the policy. Pioneer Cent. Sch. Dist. v Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06682, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

INSURANCE LAW (OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE EMPLOYER'S POLICY, EMPLOYER FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BUT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE THE SLIP AND FALL (FOURTH DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE EMPLOYER'S POLICY, EMPLOYER FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BUT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE THE SLIP AND FALL (FOURTH DEPT))/ADDITIONAL INSURED (INSURANCE LAW, OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE EMPLOYER'S POLICY, EMPLOYER FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BUT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE THE SLIP AND FALL (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW PLOWING CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM OR CREATED OR EXACERBATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS COERCED INTO RESIGNING WITHOUT A HEARING, SHERIFF SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPUTY TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE PLEA WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
GRANDMOTHER DEMONSTRATED “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES” SUCH THAT SHE HAD STANDING TO SEEK CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (FOURTH DEPT.).
POLICE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONS BEFORE ATTEMPTING A U-TURN TO PURSUE A SUSPECT AND COLLIDING WITH PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE, MOMENTARY JUDGMENT LAPSE DOES NOT MEET RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THRESHOLD STRIP WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSE PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
CORPORATE OFFICER MAY BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 853 (FOURTH 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

FATHER COULD NOT BE FOUND TO HAVE PERMANENTLY NEGLECTED THE CHILDREN AND ALSO... FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE HEARING, AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY...