You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS COVERED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE POLICY...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS COVERED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE POLICY AND ATTACHED A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE TO HER COMPLAINT; A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF AN INSURANCE CONTRACT; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint alleging plaintiff was an additional insured based upon the certificate of insurance should have been dismissed. A certificate of insurance does not prove the existence of an insurance contract:

Only those named as an insured or additional insured on an insurance policy are entitled to coverage … . As the party claiming coverage, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the policy covers her … .

Supreme Court should have granted [the insurer’s] motion to dismiss the complaint because plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that she was covered under the policy. The certificate of liability insurance is insufficient to prove that plaintiff was an additional insured because “[a] certificate of insurance is only evidence of a carrier’s intent to provide coverage but is not a contract to insure the designated party nor is it conclusive proof, standing alone, that such a contract exists” … . Furthermore, the certificate contains a disclaimer stating that it was “issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder” … . Itzhak v Briarwood Ins. Servs. Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00616, First Dept 2-10-26

Practice Point: A certificate of insurance is not proof of the existence of an underlying insurance contract. Here plaintiff relied solely on a certificate of insurance to allege she was covered under the policy as an additional insured. That was not enough to state a cause of action.

 

You might also like
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE AT A RODRIGUEZ HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THIS HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT ACTION BY EMPLOYEES OF A PRIVATE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL; THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION PRECLUDES ACTIONS AGAINST RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS WHICH INTERFERE WITH RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE; THE ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT BY SCHOOL OFFICIALS DO NOT INVOLVE RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE NOT CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE SCAFFOLD OR A FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF A JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, TWO ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A JOINT VENTURE, SHARING COSTS AND CONTROL, WERE ABSENT (FIRST DEPT).
Guilty Plea Based on a Sentence Promise that Neither the Court Nor the Parties Realized Was Illegal Requires Vacation of the Conviction in the Absence of Preservation—Notwithstanding the Fact the Sentence Was Ultimately Rendered Legal by an Enhancement Imposed Because the Defendant Violated the Terms of His Release Pending Sentencing
PLAINTIFF’S JUMPING FROM A STALLED ELEVATOR WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
AN INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH WAS REQUIRED BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THE RESULTS OF CPL ARTICLE 730 EXAMS, OF WHICH THE PRESIDING JUDGE WAS NOT MADE AWARE AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, INDICATING DEFENDANT MAY BE DELUSIONAL, CONSTITUTED ‘RED FLAGS’ WARRANTING THE INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT). ​
Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint Should Have Been Denied—Question of Fact Re: Whether Spanish Document Was a Judgment

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

DISAGREEING WITH THE THIRD DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT A PREHEARING... PLAINTIFF WAS HIT BY A FALLING CHISEL WHILE SITTING UNDER A SIDEWALK BRIDGE...