You are here: / / PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S...

PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined coverage for a slip and fall of a security company (Protection Plus) employer was not available to the property owner (Manhattan School) as an additional insured on the security company’s policy. the security guard slipped and fell on a recently mopped floor at the school:

Plaintiff Manhattan School is an additional named insured under a policy issued by defendant to nonparty Protection Plus Security Corporation. In an additional insured endorsement, the policy provides that the Manhattan School is an additional named insured “only with respect to liability for bodily injury’. . . caused, in whole or in part, by” the acts or omissions of Protection Plus in the performance of its operations for the Manhattan School.

When “an insurance policy is restricted to liability for any bodily injury caused, in whole or in part,’ by the acts or omissions’ of the named insured, the coverage applies to injury proximately caused by the named insured” … . Such language in a policy does not equate to “but for” causation and is not the same as policies containing the phrase, “arising out of” … . Fundamentally, ” arising out of’ is not the functional equivalent of proximately caused by'”… . Thus, it is not enough to merely establish a causal link to the injury.

Notably, the language in the endorsement was “intended to provide coverage for an additional insured’s vicarious or contributory negligence, and to prevent coverage for the additional insured’s sole negligence” … .

Accordingly, when a policy limits coverage to an injury “caused, in whole or part” by the “acts or omissions” of the named insured, coverage is extended to an additional insured only when the damages are the result of the named insured’s negligence or some other act or omission … .

Here, the acts or omissions of Protection Plus were not a proximate cause of the security guard’s injury. Rather, the sole proximate cause of the injury was the additional insured, and thus coverage is not available to the Manhattan School under defendant’s policy … . Hanover Ins. Co. v Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 02121, First Dept 3-27-18

INSURANCE LAW (PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT))/ADDITIONAL INSURED (INSURANCE LAW, PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Question of Fact Whether Elevator Company Had Constructive Notice of “Misleveling Condition”/Question of Fact About Applicability of Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY STATED FACTS AMOUNTING TO A BREACH-OF-FIDUCIARY-DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT REAL ESTATE BROKER, DESPITE PLAINTIFF-SELLER’S CONSENT TO THE BROKER’S “DUAL AGENCY;” IT WAS ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS AWARE THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD BY THE BUYERS FOR THREE TIMES THE PRICE AND SHE WOULD BE THE BUYERS’ BROKER FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SALES (FIRST DEPT). ​
FURTHER DISCOVERY NECESSARY TO DETERMINE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SIGNATORIES AND NON-SIGNATORIES TO A CONTRACT WITH A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE, IF THE RELATIONSHIP IS CLOSE ENOUGH, NON-SIGNATORIES WILL BE COVERED BY THE CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).
THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, AGREEING WITH THE SECOND, DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER WHO HAD BEEN ABUSED BY RESPONDENT FATHER IN THE CHILD’S PRESENCE; THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER IS ONLY TRIGGERED WHEN THE COURT ORDERS THE CHILD REMOVED FROM THE HOME, NOT THE CASE HERE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PASSENGER SUED THE DRIVER WHO STRUCK A CAR FROM BEHIND; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE DRIVER FAILED TO MAINTAIN A SAFE DISTANCE IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES FOR ELECTRONICALLY FILING A VIDEO; THEREFORE THE VIDEO WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE COURT AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH A STOREFRONT WINDOW IN DEFENDANT PLANET ROSE’S KARAOKE BAR; GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FAILURE TO INSTALL TEMPERED GLASS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT; BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, DEFENDANT 219 AVE. A, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE ALTER-EGO (PIERCE-THE-CORPORATE VEIL) CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST 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

PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL... ALTHOUGH RESPONDENT WAS NOT MARRIED TO THE TENANT OF RECORD, THEIR RELATIONSHIP...