You are here: / / THE ENDORSEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE DEFENDANT INSURER TO EXCLUDE COVERAGE...

THE ENDORSEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE DEFENDANT INSURER TO EXCLUDE COVERAGE FOR AN OIL SPILL DID NOT MEET THE STRICT CRITERIA FOR AN EXCLUSION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on the ground the oil spill damage was covered by a policy exclusion. The policy endorsement relied on by defendant did not meet the strict criteria for an exclusion from coverage:

In order “to ‘negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case'” … . “[P]olicy exclusions are given a strict and narrow construction, with any ambiguity resolved against the insurer” … . Here, in support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant did not point to an applicable policy exclusion. Rather, the defendant relied on the ELF [Property Remediation for Escaped Liquid Fuel and Limited Lead and Escaped Liquid Fuel Liability Coverages] endorsement, which provided additional coverage for the remediation of escaped liquid fuel in limited circumstances not present here. Such argument is unavailing. On its face, the ELF endorsement is not an exclusion. While the defendant argues that the existence of the ELF endorsement compels the conclusion that the policy itself excludes coverage for escaped liquid fuel under any circumstances not specified in the endorsement, policy exclusions are “not to be extended by interpretation or implication” … . As such, the defendant failed to meet its initial burden of establishing, prima facie, that an exclusion not subject to any other reasonable interpretation applied in this case … . Mulle v Lexington Ins. Co., 2021 NY Slip Op 05707, Second Dept 10-20-21

 

You might also like
BY THE TERMS OF THE MANAGING AGENT’S CONTRACT WITH THE COOPERATIVE, THE MANAGING AGENT DID NOT FULLY ASSUME THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE COOPERATIVE PREMISES SUCH THAT THE AGENT WOULD BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON THE PREMISES; THE MANAGING AGENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS STREET STOP CASE, THE POLICE OFFICER’S CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN THE OUTLINE OF A GUN UNDER DEFENDANT’S SWEAT PANTS WAS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW; THE PEOPLE THEREFORE DID NOT MEET THEIR “BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD” AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING; THE GUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SIGNING OF A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED; RELEVANT STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND BURDENS OF PROOF EXPLAINED.
STUDENT ON STUDENT ASSAULT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, THEORIES IN THE PLEADINGS WHICH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW GUARDS, THE DEFENDANT CONDOMINIUM DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL WINDOW GUARDS; THEREFORE THE CONDOMINIUM COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER’S FALL FROM THE WINDOW UNDER THE FAILURE-TO-INSTALL THEORY; HOWEVER, THE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE CONDOMINIUM’S FAILURE TO GIVE PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF THE CITY’S WINDOW-GUARD REQUIREMENT SURVIVED THE DISMISSAL MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY, REQUESTING AN AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A NOTICE WITNESS WHO WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND 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

WHERE RESPONDENTS MADE A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS, THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT... THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A SUBSTANTIVE JURY...