You are here: / / THE RESTAURANT’S INSURANCE POLICY COVERED INJURY INCURRED IN THE...
,

THE RESTAURANT’S INSURANCE POLICY COVERED INJURY INCURRED IN THE OPERATION OF THE “PREMISES” AND THEREFORE DID NOT COVER INJURY CAUSED BY A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO WAS DELIVERING FOOD BY BICYCLE; IF THE POLICY HAD USED THE WORD “BUSINESS” RATHER THAN “PREMISES,” THE OFF-PREMISES INJURY WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Landicino, determined the restaurant’s insurance policy did not cover an injury cause by a restaurant employee a block away from the restaurant. Plaintiff was struck by a restaurant employee who was on a bicycle returning from a food delivery. The policy limited coverage to injury arising out of use of the restaurant “premises … and operations necessary or incidental to those premises.” The Second Department focused on the word “premises” and concluded an accident a block away from the “premises” was not covered. The court noted that had the coverage limitation used the word “business,” as opposed to “premises,” the injury would have been covered:

There is … a glaring difference between an insurance policy that insures against losses arising from operations necessary or incidental to a business, which would ostensibly include all claims of bodily injury arising from an employee’s negligence while that employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment for the business, and a policy that insures against losses arising from operations necessary or incidental to a premises, which include claims of bodily injury that must have some premises-based connection to the covered premises. Here, the insurance policy at issue covered only those damages that arose from the operations “necessary or incidental” to the premises, which is a narrower category of coverage. Despite the fact that the alleged incident occurred while the restaurant’s employee may have been acting in the scope of his employment, the incident did not occur as a result of any activity that was connected to the operation of the premises. Normile v DB Ins. Co., Ltd., 2026 NY Slip Op 00788, Second Dept 2-11-26

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into how a court will interpret a limitation of coverage in an insurance policy.

 

You might also like
REMAINDER INTERESTS WHICH CAN ONLY BE DIVESTED BY A POWER OF APPOINTMENT ARE VESTED REMAINDER INTERESTS.
BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OR COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLECT PETITION ALLEGING EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AFTER PRESENTATION OF DIRECT CASE, CHILD’S OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED.
A CONTRACT BETWEEN A LANDOWNER AND A TOWN THAT PURPORTS TO BIND TOWN BOARDS ELECTED IN THE FUTURE WITH RESPECT TO A PETITION FOR REZONING VIOLATES THE TERM LIMITS RULE; A CONTRACT WHICH PURPORTS TO LIMIT A TOWN’S REZONING REVIEW PROCESS VIOLATES THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CONTRACT ZONING (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY ALLEGING NEGLIGENT PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE, THE COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS ENTITLED TO GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION IMMUNITY OR IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REFEREE’S CALCULATIONS WERE BASED RENDERED THE REPORT INADMISSBILE HEARSAY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
TENANT’S MOTHER HAD SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO A RENT STABILIZED APARTMENT PURSUANT TO THE RENT STABILIZATION CODE AND PUBLIC HOUSING LAW, NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL HAD MISINTERPRETED THE APPLICABLE CODE PROVISION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER ALLEGED TWO FELLOW OFFICERS NEGLIGENTLY INJURED HIM WITH A TASER; PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE HIS FELLOW OFFICERS IN TORT AND HIS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (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

IN A SMALL CLAIMS ASSESSMENT REVIEW (SCAR) CHALLENGING A REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT... DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO CHALLENGE THE INITIAL POLICE CONTACT...