You are here: / / Single Policy Limit Held to Apply to Successive Tenants in Lead-Paint-Tainted...
, , ,

Single Policy Limit Held to Apply to Successive Tenants in Lead-Paint-Tainted Apartment.

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Smith, the Fourth Department discussed the liability-limits of an insurance carrier for injuries caused to children by lead paint in the insured apartment.  The policy, which had a $500,000 limit, included the following sentence:  “All bodily injury and property damage resulting from one accidental loss or from continuous or repeated exposure to the same general conditions is considered the result of one accidental loss.”  Children in one family who lived in the apartment suffered injury from lead paint and the carrier paid out $350,000.  Subsequently children in another family who moved into the same apartment suffered injury from lead paint.  The question before the Court was whether the liability to the second family was capped at $150,000 because the total liability of the carrier could not exceed $500,000, or whether the injury to the second family triggered another $500,000 in policy coverage.  The Fourth Department determined the carrier was liable for a total of $500,000 for the injuries to both families and the second family could recover no more than $150,000.   Nesmith, et al v Allstate Insurance Company, 1252, CA 12-00182 Fourth Dept. 2-1-13

 

You might also like
THE SOLE REMEDY WHEN A CONVICTION IS DEEMED AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT, REDUCTION TO A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE.
Actus Reus for Burglary and Murder Not the Same—Consecutive Sentences Valid
Resentencing Defendant to Original Sentence (Imposing No Post Release Supervision) Did Not Require Defendant’s Presence
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF 42 USC 1988, PREVAILING PARTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A FIRST-YEAR RESIDENT, WHO DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERVISORS TO DISCONTINUE A MEDICATION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMSSED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PLAINTIFF OR PLAINTIFF’S CO-WORKER WHO INJURED PLAINTIFF, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPPLIED THE EQUIPMENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY ON THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S PART (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SORA HEARING JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, INCREASING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL, BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) OR RAISED BY THE PEOPLE AT THE HEARING; TO DO SO VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).
COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN BY DEFENDANT CONCERNING PLAINTIFF, A DOCTOR WHOSE PATIENT DIED DURING SURGERY, WAS PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE AND WAS AN EXPRESSION OF PURE OPINION (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

Right to Counsel. “Open and Obvious” Nature of Defect Does Not Negate Duty to Keep Premises...