You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S HOMEOWNER’S POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR INTENTIONAL...
,

PLAINTIFF’S HOMEOWNER’S POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR INTENTIONAL ACTS; THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND PLAINTIFF IN A SUIT STEMMING FROM AN ALLEGED ASSAULT BY PLAINTIFF ON HIS NEIGHBOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurer was not obligated to defend plaintiff (pursuant to plaintiff’s homeowner’s policy) because the injuries stemmed from an apparent assault by plaintiff on his neighbor (Salerno) and therefore involved intentional, not negligent, acts. The policy excluded coverage for injuries resulting from intentional acts. Salerno sued plaintiff in tort:

In assessing whether a policy exclusion for injuries ” intentionally caused’ ” by the insured applies, a court must look to the pleadings in the underlying action and “limit [its] examination to the nature of the conduct [of the insured] as it is there described” … . The “analysis depends on the facts which are pleaded, not conclusory assertions” … . When a complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that an assault was committed negligently, an insurer has no duty to defend where the insured does not provide “evidentiary support for the conclusory characterization of [the] conduct as negligent or provide an explanation of how the intrinsically intentional act[] of assault . . . could be negligently performed” … . An insured may not “exalt form over substance by labeling [an underlying tort] action as one to recover damages for negligence” where the conduct is inherently intentional … .

Here, the second cause of action in the Salerno complaint contains no more than a conclusory characterization of plaintiff’s conduct as negligent without any supporting factual allegations. Thus, the complaint in the underlying action does not contain sufficient allegations of negligence to avoid the policy exclusion … . Scalzo v Central Co-op. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 04639, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
SORA RISK-LEVEL POINTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED BASED UPON A JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT AN AUTOMATIC OVERRIDE FOR AN “ABNORMALITY THAT DECREASES THE ABILITY TO CONTROL IMPULSIVE SEXUAL BEHAVIOR” (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SENTENCING COURT INDICATED IT COULD NOT DEVIATE FROM ITS SENTENCING AGREEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE BUT SENTENCING COURTS HAVE DISCRETION; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR RE-SENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND INCLUDED A PARCEL OF LAND NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEED AND SOUGHT A CORRECTED DEED; PURSUANT TO THE MERGER DOCTRINE, THE CONTRACT AND THE DEED MERGED AT THE CLOSING AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION IN THE DEED IS DEEMED TO REFLECT THE FINAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES (ABSENT FRAUD OR AMBIGUITY IN THE DEED); PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REVENUE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND A LOAN?
Inadvertently Disseminated Investigative Report [Concerning a Doctor’s Conduct With Respect to Plaintiff’s Decedent] Generated by the Office of Professional Medical Conduct Is Not Discoverable—Matter Must Be Returned to the “Status Quo Prior to the [Inadvertent] Disclosure”
THE TOWN CONTRACTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED; DEFENDANT CONTRACTED WITH THE TOWN TO HANDLE BIDS FOR THE PROJECT; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR THE TOWN AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 AND NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT ACTED SUSPICIOUSLY THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION HE WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT FLED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH 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

THE SOLAR ARRAY IS ATTACHED TO THE COLLEGE’S LAND AND IS THEREFORE TAXABLE... THE DEFENDANT’S SIGNATURE ON THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED...