You are here: / / INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED...
,

INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the defendant insurance broker’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged, under a negligence theory, that the broker failed to procure sufficient uninsured motorist coverage. The papers submitted by the broker failed to demonstrate the amount of coverage requested was procured. Therefore the motion should have been denied without consideration of the opposing papers:

​

An insurance broker may be held liable under theories of breach of contract or negligence for failing to procure insurance upon a showing by the insured that the agent or broker failed to discharge the duties imposed by the agreement to obtain insurance, either by proof that it breached the agreement or because it failed to exercise due care in the transaction … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they submitted insufficient evidence that they procured the amount of coverage that the plaintiff engaged them to procure … . Giamundo v Cleveland Dunn 2nd, 2018 NY Slip Op 00411, Second Dept 1-24-18

INSURANCE LAW (INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE BROKER (NEGLIGENCE, (INSURANCE BROKER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE AMOUNT OF UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERED REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF WAS PROCURED, BROKER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Supreme Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine Whether Attorneys Were Entitled to the Fees Sought by Them—Plaintiff Had Already Paid the Attorneys Nearly the Amount the Case Ultimately Settled For—the Attorneys, Who Had Been Discharged Without Cause, Sought 40% of the Settlement Pursuant to a Contingency Agreement Which Was Entered In Anticipation of Trial
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Most of Police Internal Investigation Report Deemed Immune from Disclosure
Conclusory Affidavit Insufficient to Meet Burden of Demonstrating Documents Were Privileged Because the Documents Were Prepared Solely In Anticipation of Litigation—Motion for a Protective Order Limiting Discovery Properly Denied
HERE THE MARINA OWNER SERVED THE BOAT OWNER WITH A NOTICE OF SALE (FOR FAILURE TO PAY STORAGE FEES) BY MAIL; THE LIEN LAW REQUIRES AN INITIAL ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF SALE BEFORE RESORTING TO SERVICE BY MAIL; THE FAILURE TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE BEFORE SELLING THE BOAT VIOLATED THE LIEN LAW; THE SALE OF THE BOAT THEREFORE CONSTITUTED CONVERSION (SECOND DEPT).
THE TEN-MONTH DELAY BEFORE SEEKING TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT’S SPECULATIVE ALLEGATION OF PREJUDICE WERE NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR DENYING THE MOTION TO AMEND (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITHIN THE ONE-YEAR ALLOWED BY STATUTE; IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, DESPITE THE PASSAGE OF SIX YEARS SINCE THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED, THE COURT DOES NOT EXAMINE THE MERITS OF THE PLEADING UNLESS THE LACK OF MERIT IS CLEAR AND FREE FROM DOUBT (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

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304... HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) APPLIED, NO EVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS...