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
ALTHOUGH THE BETTER PRACTICE IS TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE AFFIRMATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S PRIMARY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO A VOCATIONAL EXAM DESCRIBED THE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE, THE MOTION TO COMPEL WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE 31 YEAR DELAY IN INDICTING DEFENDANT FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Emergency Doctrine Excused Police Officer’s Causing a Collision
THE LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT SPELLED OUT WHAT THE ATTORNEYS AGREED TO DO, DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Law School Properly Rescinded Student’s Application for Admission Based Upon Omissions Concerning Criminal Record
THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) CANNOT DEMAND A RELEASE FROM THE PLAINTIFF ONCE THE MVAIC’S OBLIGATION TO PAY HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DOCTRINE OF MUTUAL MISTAKE APPLIED TO REFORM NOTE AND MORTGAGE.
THE FEDERAL OFFENSE DID NOT REQUIRE THAT THE FIREARM BE OPERABLE BUT THE NEW YORK OFFENSE DOES; THEREFORE THE FEDERAL OFFENSE IS NOT A PREDICATE OFFENSE FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES; THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, IT WAS CONSIDERED ON APPEAL 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 © 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...