You are here: / / Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located...
,

Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located in the Parking Lot) Into the Building’s Septic System Was Not Subject to the “Parking Lot” Exclusion from Coverage—The Claim Did Not Arise from the “Ownership, Maintenance or Use” of the Parking Lot, But Rather Arose from the “Operations Necessary or Incidental” to the Insured Building

The Second Department determined that the exclusion of a parking lot from a bodily injury insurance policy did not apply to the failure of a manhole cover in the parking lot.  Plaintiff’s decedent drowned in the leaching pool below the manhole. The leaching pool and manhole cover were deemed to be part of the building’s septic system.  Therefore the claim arose from operations necessary or incidental to the building, and not out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the parking lot:

The policy provided coverage for bodily injury “arising out of . . . [t]he ownership, maintenance or use of the premises . . . and operations necessary or incidental to those premises.” The policy excluded coverage for claims “arising out of . . . [t]he ownership, maintenance or use of [a specified parking lot] or any property located on these premises; [or] Operations . . . necessary or incidental to the ownership, maintenance or use of those premises” (hereinafter the parking lot exclusion). * * *

Exclusions to coverage must be strictly construed and read narrowly, with any ambiguity construed against the insurer … . “[T]o 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'” … . …

Since the allegedly defective manhole cover and leaching pool into which the decedent fell were part of the building’s septic system, the decedent’s claim arose out of operations necessary or incidental to the building, and not out of the “ownership, maintenance or use” of the rear parking lot. Thus, strictly construing the parking lot exclusion and reading it narrowly, it does not apply … . Lancer Indem. Co. v JKH Realty Group, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03331, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A PROTRUDING NAIL IN A BASEMENT STAIRWAY WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE STAIRWAY WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).
2009 Statute Setting Aside Money for Increased Judicial Compensation Did Not Constitute a Pay Raise for Judges
A STAY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY; BUT THE APPEARANCE OF NEW COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAIVED THE PROTECTION OF THE STAY (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CITY GAVE A PERMIT TO A BUS COMPANY TO USE A PARKING LOT, THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT RELINQUISHED ALL CONTROL OVER THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
“Warranty” Need Not Be Set Forth In Any Special Manner—Here the Language on the Declaration Page that “Warranted” a Fire Alarm Will Be “Fully Operational” Was a Valid Condition Precedent to the Insured’s Liability—Summary Judgment In Favor of Insurer Properly Granted
THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT).
Single Act of Excessive Corporal Punishment Justified Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings/Single Act of Domestic Violence Did Not Justify Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings—No Proof the Three-Month-Old Child Was Aware of the Domestic-Violence Incident
DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CAUSES ACTION, AS WELL AS A FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT CAUSE OF ACTION, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

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

Insurer Did Not Demonstrate, as a Matter of Law, the Denials of Claims Were... Lessee Who Has Authority to Control the Work Is Liable Under the Labor Law