You are here: / / “Direct Financial Loss” Caused by Employee Defined
,

“Direct Financial Loss” Caused by Employee Defined

The First Department explained what “direct financial loss” means in the context of bonds issued to indemnify a commodities futures broker [MF Global] for loss caused by a wrongful act by an employee:

In the bonds, plaintiffs agreed to indemnify MF Global for losses “sustained at any time for . . . any wrongful act committed by any employee . . . which is committed . . . with the intent to obtain financial gain for [the employee]” (emphasis omitted). “Loss” means “the direct financial loss sustained by [MF Global] as a result of any single act, single omission or single event, or a series of related or continuous acts, omissions or events.” The bonds exclude coverage for “[i]ndirect or consequential loss.” A “[w]rongful act,” with respect to trading in commodities and futures, is defined as “any . . . dishonest . . . act committed with the intent to obtain improper financial gain for . . . an employee” … .. * * *

The motion court properly concluded that MF Global’s loss constituted a “direct financial loss.” Although that term is not defined in the bonds, “[a] direct loss for insurance purposes has been analogized with proximate cause”… …

Here, [a broker’s] conduct in making unauthorized trades beyond his margin was the direct and proximate cause of MF Global’s loss… . New Hampshire Ins Co v MF Global, 2013 NY Slip Op 05291, 1st Dept 7-16-13

 

You might also like
Exclusion from Coverage of Claims Brought By or On Behalf of a Governmental Entity Applied to a Qui Tam Case Brought by a Private Party Pursuant to the Federal and State False Claims Acts Re: Medicare and Medicaid Over-Billing—the Private Party (“Relator”) Is Bringing the Action On Behalf of the Government, Which Is the Real Party In Interest
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, AFTER A COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE, ISSUED A PRECLUSION ORDER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MOTION PENDING (FIRST DEPT).
FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE BASED UPON MATTERS COLLATERAL TO THE CONTRACT, NOT THE BREACH OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF (FIRST DEPT).
A NOTICE OF LIEN CAN NOT BE DISCHARGED ABSENT A TRIAL IF IT IS VALID ON ITS FACE (FIRST DEPT).
Motion to Renew Was Not Based Upon a Change in the Applicable Law—Motion Court Had Simply Ignored the Controlling Precedent—Therefore the Motion Was Actually a Motion to Reargue, the Denial of Which Is Not Appealable
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOARDS OR MASONITE WERE SCATTERED DEBRIS OR DELIBERATELY PLACED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RENOVATION WORK; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR 241(6) CAUSE OF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL DOWN A PERMANENT CONCRETE STAIRWAY DID NOT REMOVE THE INCIDENT FROM THE REACH OF LABOR LAW 240(1); PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE OR SNOW IN AN AREA WHICH HAD BEEN CLEARED SUCH THAT IT CONSTITUTED A “PASSAGEWAY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE RE: THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION (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

Complaint Sufficiently Alleged Facts to Support Piercing the Corporate Vei... Application for Certification as NYC School Bus Driver Should Have Been Denied...