You are here: / / EXCLUSION FOR INJURY DURING UNLOADING AN INSURED TRAILER APPLIED, EVEN ...

EXCLUSION FOR INJURY DURING UNLOADING AN INSURED TRAILER APPLIED, EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE TRAILER.

The First Department determined an exclusion from plaintiff’s “Truckers Policy” issued to Truck-Rite was unambiguous. The policy excluded coverage for injury arising out of loading and unloading trailers covered by the policy. Plaintiff was unloading a trailer when the trailer’s lift gate collapsed. Despite the fact that the injury was caused by a defective part of the trailer, the injury was not covered by the policy:

“Policy exclusions are subject to strict construction and must be read narrowly, and any ambiguities in the insurance policy are to be construed against the insurer. However, unambiguous provisions of insurance contracts will be given their plain and ordinary meaning” … .

“In the context of a policy exclusion, the phrase arising out of is unambiguous, and is interpreted broadly to mean originating from, incident to, or having connection with'” … . To determine the applicability of an “arising out of” exclusion, the Court of Appeals had adopted a “but for” test … . This test is defined as follows “[I]f the plaintiff in an underlying action or proceeding alleges the existence of facts clearly falling within such an exclusion, and none of the causes of action that he or she asserts could exist but for the existence of the excluded activity or state of affairs, the insurer is under no obligation to defend the action”… .

Here, the underlying plaintiff’s accident occurred while he was unloading material from a shipping trailer, an activity clearly encompassed by the exclusion. The fact that his injury was allegedly caused by the defective nature of the trailer lift does not remove the injury from the policy exclusion. “[T]he focus of the inquiry is not on the precise cause of the accident but the general nature of the operation in the course of which the injury was sustained'” … . “[T]he phrase arising out of’ . . . requires only that there be some causal relationship between the injury and the risk for which coverage is provided” … . Such a causal relationship between the injury and exclusion clearly exists here and requires dismissal of the complaint. Country-Wide Ins. Co. v Excelsior Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 00718, 1st Dept 2-2-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (EXCLUSION FOR INJURY DURING UNLOADING AN INSURED TRAILER APPLIED, EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE TRAILER)/EXCLUSIONS (INSURANCE LAW, EXCLUSION FOR INJURY DURING UNLOADING AN INSURED TRAILER APPLIED, EVEN THOUGH THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE TRAILER)

You might also like
LANDOWNERS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY IN PUBLIC VESTIBULE OF THEIR BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED; HER TESTIMONY ABOUT HER ALLEGED CONDUCT AT THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) WOULD HAVE BEEN CUMULATIVE AND DEFENDANTS COULD NOT SHOW THE IME WAS COMPROMISED IN ANY WAY (FIRST DEPT).
Penalty Which Effectively Made It Impossible for an Architect to Practice His Profession Too Severe
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RENEW ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANTS’ WINNING ARGUMENT WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S LANYARD WAS UNHOOKED AT THE TIME HE FELL, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCAFFOLD PROVIDED A PROPER WAY TO TIE OFF THE LANYARD 1ST DEPT.
WHERE A STATUTE, HERE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 40-B, PRESCRIBES A MONETARY REMEDY, AN INJUNCTION IS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG CRITERIA WHEN RULING ON WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; ASSESSING DEFENDANT’S CHANCES AT TRIAL IS NOT THE PROPER ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

NONMONETARY SETTLEMENT OF A SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTION SUIT APPROVED,... CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RAISED QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY...