You are here: / / THE INJURED PARTY WAS STRUCK WITH A BATON IN AN ALTERCATION OUTSIDE A BAR;...
, ,

THE INJURED PARTY WAS STRUCK WITH A BATON IN AN ALTERCATION OUTSIDE A BAR; IT WAS ALLEGED THE INJURY WAS ACCIDENTAL; THE INSURER SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: THE OBLIGATION TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE INCIDENT FELL OUTSIDE THE COVERAGE OF THE POLICY (NO DISCLAIMER REQUIRED) OR WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS SUBJECT TO A POLICY EXCLUSION (TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIRED) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the disclaimer by the insurer, Mapfre, was required and/or timely in this personal injury case. In the midst of some sort of altercation outside a bar, Groskopf was struck with a baton by Edward Ferrall. Edward Ferrall claimed he did not intend to strike Groskopf. The two questions before the court in this declaratory judgment action were (1) whether the injury was the result of an “occurrence” (accident) within the coverage terms of the policy, and (2) whether the injury was intended and therefore subject to a policy exclusion. If the claim falls outside the coverage terms no disclaimer is required. If the claim is subject to an exclusion from coverage, a timely disclaimer is required:

… Groskopf and the Ferrall defendants failed to establish, prima facie, their respective entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on whether an “occurrence” was involved giving rise to policy coverage and, if so, whether such occurrence fell within the “expected or intended” injury policy exclusion. * * *

… [D]efendants also failed to demonstrate their respective prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon Mapfre’s alleged untimely disclaimer. * * * [G]iven that there are triable issues of fact regarding whether the claim falls within the coverage, [the] defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that a timely disclaimer was required. Mapfre Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Ferrall, 2023 NY Slip Op 01082, Second Dept 3-1-23

Practice Point: Here there was an altercation outside a bar and the injured party was struck with a baton. It was alleged the injury was accidental and the insurer sought a declaratory judgment on its obligation to defend and indemnify. There were questions of fact whether the incident fell within the coverage terms (if so, no disclaimer was required) and whether the incident was subject to an exclusion from coverage (if so, a timely disclaimer was required).

 

You might also like
Declaratory Judgment, Not Mandamus, Was Proper Vehicle for Determining Whether a Town Was Obligated to Repair a Bridge
42 USC 1983 IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE MUNICIPAL-LAW NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT; THE NOTICE OF THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION WAS TIMELY; THE PETITION TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM FOR THE REMAINING STATE LAW CLAIMS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EXCUSES WERE NOT VALID AND THE VILLAGE DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE CLAIMS SIMPLY BY VIRTUE OF THE POLICE REPORT AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER (SECOND DEPT).
Complaint Stated Causes of Action for Breach of Contract and Fraud—Plaintiff Agreed to Forgo Compensation for Work Done for Defendant in Return for a Stake in Defendant’s Business—Defendant Terminated the Relationship Without Paying Plaintiff
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Filing of Article 78 Petition Itself Constituted a Demand that Respondent Perform Its Duty, the Triggering Event for the Four-Month Statute of Limitations in a Mandamus to Compel Proceeding/Supreme Court and Surrogate’s Court Have Concurrent Jurisdiction Over the Administration of an Estate
Although There Was Evidence the Plaintiff Failed to Yield the Right-of-Way, There Was a Triable Question of Fact Whether Defendant Could Have Taken Steps to Avoid the Collision
THE POLICE ACTED ILLEGALLY IN DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT’S SUBSEQUENT INDEPENDENT ACT OF RUNNING OVER THE POLICE OFFICER DISSIPATED THE ILLEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS CERTAIN TESTIMONY ABOUT THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE POLICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROOF THE 90-DAY NOTICES WERE MAILED TO THE PRO SE PLAINTIFFS, THERE WAS ALSO PROOF THE MAIL WAS NOT DELIVERED AND WAS RETURNED; WITHOUT PROOF PLAINTIFFS ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE 90-DAY NOTICES, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS STRUCK BY AN ONCOMING CAR WHICH CROSSED A DOUBLE YELLOW... EVIDENCE OF NEGLECT BASED UPON ALCOHOL USE WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BASIS WAS OUT-OF-COURT...