You are here: / / POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND.

POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND.

The Second Department determined the “insured versus insured” policy exclusion was ambiguous and therefore could not be the basis for declaring the insurer, Princeton, did not have a duty to defend in this slip and fall case. Here an employee of one insured sued the company which owned the land, which was also insured by Princeton. The Second Department held it was not clear whether the plaintiff employee was an “insured” within the meaning of the exclusion:

“To be relieved of its duty to defend on the basis of a policy exclusion, the insurer bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that the allegations of the complaint [in the underlying action] cast the pleadings wholly within that exclusion, that the exclusion is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and that there is no possible factual or legal basis upon which the insurer may eventually be held obligated to indemnify the insured under any policy provision” … . “[I]f the language is doubtful or uncertain in its meaning, any ambiguity will be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer”… .

Here, Princeton disclaimed coverage based upon the “Insured Versus Insured” exclusion, which excluded “[a]ny claim’ made by or for the benefit of, or in the name or right of, one current or former insured against another current or former insured.” As it is not clear from the language of the exclusion at issue whether [plaintiff], as an employee, was an “insured” as that term was defined in the policy … , the provisions are ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation … . Boro Park Land Co., LLC v Princeton Excess Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 04684, 2nd Dept 6-15-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND)/EXCLUSION, POLICY (INSURANCE LAW, POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND)/DUTY TO DEFEND (INSURANCE LAW, POLICY EXCLUSION WAS AMBIGUOUS, INSURER HAD A DUTY TO DEFEND)

You might also like
DRIVER PURCHASED A GOODYEAR TIRE FOR HIS FORD FROM US TIRES, A NEW YORK CORPORATION; THE TIRE ALLEGEDLY FAILED LEADING TO A SERIOUS ACCIDENT IN VIRGINIA; DRIVER SUED US TIRES; US TIRES SUED GOODYEAR AND FORD, BOTH OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS, SEEKING INDEMNIFICATION; NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER GOODYEAR AND FORD IN THE US TIRES SUIT (SECOND DEPT). ​
COUNTY COURT DECIDED TO ANONYMIZE POTENTIAL AND EMPANELED JURORS IN THIS MURDER TRIAL; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ANONYMIZED JURY DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND DID NOT WARRANT INTERVENTION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE EFFECT OF THE ANONYMIZED JURY ON THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE WARRANTED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT’S FINDING THAT FREEING THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION WOULD NOT BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE DANCE FLOOR IN THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Sua Sponte Rulings Do Not Become the Law-of-the-Case and Do Not Bind an Appellate Court
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AND DEFENDANT’S PETITION TO REDUCE THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS; FAMILY COURT HAD GRANTED DEFENDANT’S PETITION AND DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
FORECLOSURE ACTION ABANDONED, BANK FAILED TO INITIATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHIN ONE YEAR (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

U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK... MOTHER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED, MOTHER INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSULT...