You are here: / / PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER...
,

PROPERTY OWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this slip and fall case, determined the defendant property owner's (Medford's) motion for summary judgment declaring that the insurer (NGM) was obligated to reimburse the property owner's costs incurred in defending the action should have been granted:

… [T]he plaintiff allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot on property owned by Medford Landing, L.P. (hereinafter Medford). The plaintiff commenced this action against Medford to recover damages for personal injuries. Thereafter, Medford commenced a third-party action against the third-party defendants, which provided snow removal services at the premises pursuant to a contract with Medford. The third-party complaint asserted, inter alia, causes of action based on contractual and common-law indemnification, as well as a cause of action sounding in breach of contract for failure to procure insurance naming Medford as an additional insured. Medford also commenced a second third-party action against NGM Insurance Company (hereinafter NGM), which issued a general liability insurance policy to the third-party defendants. Medford moved for summary judgment on the third-party causes of action for contractual indemnification, for common-law indemnification, and alleging breach of contract, and separately moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Medford also separately moved for summary judgment declaring that it is an additional insured under the NGM policy, and that NGM is obligated to defend and indemnify it in the main action and to reimburse it for costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees incurred in defending the main action. * * *

… [T]he Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Medford's motion which was for summary judgment declaring that NGM is obligated to reimburse Medford for costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees incurred in defending the main action.  “An insurer's duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and arises whenever the allegations of the complaint against the insured, liberally construed, potentially fall within the scope of the risks undertaken by the insurer” … . “If any of the claims against an insured arguably arise from covered events, the insurer is required to defend the entire action”… . “An additional insured is entitled to the same coverage as if it were a named insured” … . Here, Medford established, prima facie, that the allegations in the complaint suggested a reasonable possibility of coverage … . In opposition, NGM failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the accident arose from Medford's independent acts so as to preclude coverage under the NGM policy, since there is no requirement that liability must be determined before an additional insured is entitled to a defense … . Further, there is no merit to NGM's contention that the subject policy provided only excess insurance coverage to Medford. The NGM policy was written as primary coverage for the third-party defendants and added Medford as an additional insured, which entitles Medford to the same coverage rights as the primary insured … . McCoy v Medford Landing, L.P., 2018 NY Slip Op 06236, Second Dept 9-26-18

INSURANCE LAW (PROPERTY OWNER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (FEES, INSURANCE LAW, PROPERTY OWNER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, INSURANCE LAW, (PROPERTY OWNER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (INSURANCE LAW, ATTORNEY'S FEES, PROPERTY OWNER'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING THAT THE INSURER WAS OBLIGATED TO REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES INCURRED IN DEFENDING THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, GUILTY PLEA VACATED; THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS NOT DISCUSSED UNTIL AFTER THE GUILTY PLEA, WAIVER INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE GUN FOUND UNDER HIS SEAT IN THE CAR; THE PEOPLE DID NOT RELY ON THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF A CAR POSSESS CONTRABAND IN THE CAR; RATHER THE PEOPLE RELIED ON THE TESTIMONY OF A POLICE OFFICER WHO SAW DEFENDANT PLACE AN OBJECT UNDER HIS SEAT; AFTER DEFENDANT GOT OUT OF THE CAR, THE BARREL OF THE GUN WAS IN PLAIN VIEW (SECOND DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT GIVE COUNSEL MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A SUBSTANTIVE JURY NOTE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Probation Department’s Unauthorized Taking of DNA Evidence Required Suppression/Inevitable Discovery Doctrine Applied to Deny Suppression of Identification Evidence and Defendant’s Statement
SOCIAL SERVICES LAW ARTICLE 11 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT TOLL WHILE DEFENDANT WAS OUT OF STATE BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN SERVED OUT OF STATE, PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S INTERFERENCE IN AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE DEFENSE SUMMATION AND IMPROPER EXCLUSION AND ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BREACH OF DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE... MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD THE ADDRESS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP...