You are here: / / POLICIES DID NOT REQUIRE THE INSURER TO DEFEND THE INSURED, BUT DID REQUIRE...
,

POLICIES DID NOT REQUIRE THE INSURER TO DEFEND THE INSURED, BUT DID REQUIRE THE INSURER TO PAY THE INSURED’S DEFENSE COSTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, determined that the terms of the policies at issue did not obligate the insurer to defend the insured, but do require the insurer to pay the insured’s defense costs. The opinion is too fact-specific and too comprehensive to fairly summarize here:

In this insurance coverage action brought by a putative additional insured, the liability insurance policies at issue do not impose on the insurers a duty to defend the insured in a covered action. The policies do, however, require the insurers to reimburse the insured for defense costs incurred in an action “in which damages . . . to which this insurance applies are alleged.” The ultimate factual determination in the underlying personal injury actions was that the loss was actually outside the scope of the additional insured coverage. This determination, while it means that the insurers have no duty to indemnify the putative additional insured for its liability to pay damages, is not conclusive of a different question posed to us, which is whether the putative additional insured is entitled reimbursement of its defense costs. * * *

Under the terms of the … policy, the timing of the Port Authority’s demand for reimbursement does not defeat its claim for reimbursement of its defense costs through the time its liability was adjudicated in the underlying actions. … [The] policy entitles the insured to coverage of the costs it incurred in defending “any . . . suit’ to which this policy applies,” and the policy defines the term “suit” to mean an action “in which damages because of bodily injury’ . . . to which this insurance applies are alleged” … . … [U]ntil the jury rendered the verdict adverse to the Port Authority, each of the underlying actions remained a ” suit’ to which th[e] … policy applie[d]” … . Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v Brickman Group Ltd., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08958, First Dept 12-12-19

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE BUS DRIVER SHOULD HAVE SEEN DECEDENT.
RETRIAL VIOLATED THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY; DEFENDANT HAD MADE A MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL WITH PREJUDICE AND DID NOT CONSENT TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT).
OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT).
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, WHETHER THE CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY TO WARN, BUT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PROXIMATE CAUSE OR NEGLIGENCE; HERE THE IRREGULARLY-SHAPED LANDING AND ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL VIOLATED THE CITY BUILDING CODE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Company Hired on On-Call Basis for Elevator Repair Not Liable for Allegedly Faulty Elevator Door Interlock Where Last Repair Made 13 Months Before Accident
Mother Could Not Maintain a Cause of Action for Emotional Harm Based Upon the Death of Her Baby—Although the Baby Was “Pre-Viable” and Unconscious, the Baby Was Born Alive and the Mother Suffered No Independent Injury
Error to Impeach Defendant Re: Failure to Offer Exculpatory Version to Police; Error to Comment on Defendant’s Post-Arrest Silence (Harmless However)

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

ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND... REGULATION LIMITING BRIEFS TO EIGHT PAGES IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS AND THE...