You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURER IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING COVERAGE...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURER IS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING COVERAGE TO A PARTY LISTED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED IN A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about plaintiff’s reliance on a certificate of insurance and whether the certificate was issued by the carrier or its agent. Although a certificate of insurance is not a contract, the carrier may be estopped from denying coverage if the party named as an additional insured in the certificate relied on the certificate and the certificate was issued by the insurer or its agent:

“It is well established that a certificate of insurance, by itself, does not confer insurance coverage, particularly [where, as here,] the certificate expressly provides that it is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder [and] does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies” … . “A certificate of insurance is only evidence of a carrier’s intent to provide coverage but is not a contract to insure the designated party nor is it conclusive proof, standing alone, that such a contract exists” … .

” ‘Nevertheless, an insurance company that issues a certificate of insurance naming a particular party as an additional insured may be estopped from denying coverage to that party where the party reasonably relies on the certificate of insurance to its detriment’ ” … ” ‘For estoppel based upon the issuance of a certificate of insurance to apply, however, the certificate must have been issued by the insurer itself or by an agent of the insurer’ ” … . County of Erie v Gateway-Longview, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02631, Fourth Dept 4-30-21

 

You might also like
JUDGE’S RESPONSE TO JURY NOTE ALLOWED JURY TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE OF ACTIONS NOT CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT, CONVICTION REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED.
POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Owner/Officer of Company Can Be Personally Liable for Toxic Emissions Released by Company.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT, ASSESSED 12 POINTS FOR FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY; DEFENDANT ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY BY PLEADING GUILTY (FOURTH DEPT).
All But Rape First Charges Were Time-Barred—Different Statute of Limitations for Rape First
FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED AFTER A DEFENSE VERDICT; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
IT IS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR A JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA DEAL WITH A CODEFENDANT IN EXCHANGE FOR TESTIMONY AGAINST THE DEFENDANT (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

ALTHOUGH THE VICTIM WAS SHOT AND THE BULLET PASSED THROUGH HIS LEG, THE PROOF... SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PETITIONER-SEX-OFFENDER’S REQUEST...