You are here: / / FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE...

FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.

The Second Department noted that the loss at issue, the collapse of a retaining wall caused by run-off water, was the subject of a policy exclusion, an issue about which there was no dispute. Plaintiff argued the insurer’s disclaimer letter was ineffective because it did not identify the precise ground upon which the disclaimer was ultimately based. The Second Department, applying common law waiver and estoppel principles, rejected the argument because the failure to disclaim based upon an exclusion will not give rise to coverage which does not exist:

… [T]he defendants’ failure to specifically identify the flood and surface water exclusions in its disclaimer letter must be considered under common-law waiver and/or estoppel principles … .

Waiver, which is a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, does not apply here because “the failure to disclaim based on an exclusion will not give rise to coverage that does not exist” … . Under the principles of estoppel, an insurer, though in fact not obligated to provide coverage, may be precluded from denying coverage upon proof that the insurer “by its conduct, otherwise lulled [the insured] into sleeping on its rights under the insurance contract” … . Estoppel requires proof that the insured has suffered prejudice by virtue of the insurer’s conduct … . Because the plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing of prejudice, there was no basis to estop the defendants from relying on policy exclusions not detailed in their letter disclaiming coverage. Provencal, LLC v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 02644, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

INSURANCE LAW (FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST)/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST)EXCLUSIONS FROM INSURANCE COVERAGE (FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST)

You might also like
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT.
Marching Band Director Did Not Assume the Risk of Injury Caused by a Defect in the Roadway
THE CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT OF A TEMPORARY RECEIVER IN THIS PARTITION AND SALE ACTION WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
Abuse Finding, Based Upon an Unsatisfactory Explanation for the Child’s Injury, Reversed Based Upon the Testimony of Petitioner’s Medical Witness Who Stated the Injury Could Have Been Caused by a Fall and Described the Child as Basically Asymptomatic and Happy at the Hospital
THE DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY BUT DID NOT NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY OF THE LINEUP; THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT VERDICT PROPERLY SET ASIDE.
INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER A HIT-AND-RUN VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
​ WHEN THE FAILURE TO PRESENT FACTS IN A PRIOR MOTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE SECOND MOTION DOES NOT FIT THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW OR AN ALLOWABLE SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND 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

THE FLAWS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION... BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND...