You are here: / / Even Though the Insured Was Faultless, the “Additional Insureds”...
, , ,

Even Though the Insured Was Faultless, the “Additional Insureds” Endorsement Was Triggered—The Endorsement Covered Acts or Omissions by the Insured Which “Caused” the Underlying Injury Without Any Requirement that the “Cause” Entail Negligence—Here the Insured Was Not Negligent, but the Injury Was “Caused” by Insured’s Non-Negligent Acts—Therefore the Additional Insureds Were Covered Under the Policy

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined that the “additional insureds” endorsement in plaintiff-insurer’s policy did not have a “negligence trigger.” Therefore, even though it was demonstrated that the company insured under plaintiff-insurer’s policy was not negligent, the endorsement covered the “additional insureds” because there was a causal relationship between the insured’s acts and the underlying injury to a worker. The insured company, Breaking Solutions, was hired by the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to break up concrete for a subway construction project. Plaintiff-insurer, Burlington Insurance Co. insured Breaking Solutions.  The NYCTA and MTA were additional insureds under the policy. It was NYCTA’s responsibility to identify the location of electric cables and to shut off the power in the areas where Breaking Solutions was working. NYCTA failed to identify and shut off the power to a cable which was struck by Breaking Solutions’ excavation equipment resulting in an explosion. The plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action, an NYCTA employee, was injured by the explosion. The issue came down to the language of the “additional insureds” endorsement which referred only to injuries “caused” by the acts or omissions of the insured. Even though the probable intent of the drafters of the policy was to cover only “negligent” acts or omissions by the insured which “caused” the injury, the language of the endorsement could only be enforced as written. Because the worker’s injuries were “caused” by the (non-negligent) acts of the insured, the additional insureds (NYCTA and MTA) were covered under the terms of the policy:

While it is true that, because NYCTA had not warned the Breaking Solutions’ operator of the cable’s presence, Breaking Solutions’ “act[]” did not constitute negligence, this does not change the fact that the act of triggering the explosion, faultless though it was on Breaking Solutions’ part, was a cause of [the worker’s] injury. The language of the relevant endorsement, on its face, defines the additional insured coverage afforded in terms of whether the loss was “caused by” the named insured’s “acts or omissions,” without regard to whether those “acts or omissions” constituted negligence or were otherwise actionable. Burlington Ins. Co. v NYC Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 06481, 1st Dept 8-11-15

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A BICYCLIST, WAS STRUCK BY A TRUCK WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO GO AROUND DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR (FIRST DEPT). ​
CPLR 7515, ENACTED IN 2018, DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PROHIBIT MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS (FIRST DEPT).
THE STORE MANAGER TOOK THE TWO CANS OF RED BULL DEFENDANT WAS CARRYING FROM HIM AND TOLD HIM TO LEAVE THE STORE; THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE BURGLARY CONVICTION; AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED OTHERWISE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK-LEVEL; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PHOTOGRAPH OF SIDEWALK DEFECT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE BUS DRIVER SHOULD HAVE SEEN DECEDENT.
DEFENDANT’S INNOCENT TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS THE RESULT OF HIS DISARMING A MAN WHO WAS ASSAULTING THE MAN’S WIFE; THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

International Bank With a Branch in New York Was Required to Comply with an... County Clerk Not Authorized to Enter Judgment Where the Underlying Stipulation...