You are here: / Insurance Law
,

CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that a claim against the bankrupt’s (Daffy’s) insurer is not barred by the insured’s (Daffy’s) discharge in bankruptcy:

​

The court correctly determined that this third-party action against Daffy’s Inc. is not barred by the “Stipulated Order” in Daffy’s bankruptcy proceeding, in which third-party plaintiff [property owner] , waived and released any claims or causes of action relating to or arising under its lease with Daffy’s, and the lease was “rejected and terminated.” The motion papers make it clear that [the property owner] seeks to establish Daffy’s liability in the underlying personal injury action for the sole purpose of recovering under Daffy’s insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident. Because the policy would not inure to Daffy’s pecuniary benefit, it was not part of the bankruptcy estate, and thus it is not covered by the Stipulated Order … . Moreover, this Court has recognized that “a claim asserted for the sole purpose of establishing the liability of a party’s insurer is not barred by that party’s discharge in bankruptcy” … . Calleja v AI 229 W. 42nd St. Prop. Owner, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00338, First Dept 1-18-18

INSURANCE LAW (CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (INSURANCE LAW, CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT))

AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER’S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer (GEICO) did not present sufficient evidence to justify a temporary stay of arbitration and a framed issue hearing in this car-accident case. The insured, Tucci, alleged the accident in which he was severely injured was caused by a driver who struck Tucci's car while attempting to pass and then fled the scene. GEICO claimed  (1) Tucci failed to timely notify it of the accident and (2) there was no evidence of contact with the other car:

” The party seeking a stay of arbitration has the burden of showing the existence of sufficient evidentiary facts to establish a preliminary issue which would justify the stay'” … . “Thereafter, the burden shifts to the party opposing the stay to rebut the prima facie showing”… . Where a triable issue of fact is raised, the Supreme Court, not the arbitrator, must determine it in a framed-issue hearing, and the appropriate procedure under such circumstances is to temporarily stay arbitration pending a determination of the issue … .

Here, GEICO failed to show the existence of evidentiary facts regarding Tucci's failure to satisfy the reporting requirement or whether there was physical contact with a hit-and-run vehicle, since, as to those issues, it only provided the unsupported, conclusory assertions of its attorney … . Matter of Government Employees Ins. Co. v Tucci, 2018 NY Slip Op 00142, Second Dept 1-10-18

INSURANCE LAW (STAY OF ARBITRATION, FRAMED ISSUE HEARING, AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER'S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (INSURANCE LAW, STAY OF ARBITRATION, FRAMED ISSUE HEARING, AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER'S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/ARBITRATION (INSURANCE LAW, STAY OF ARBITRATION, FRAMED ISSUE HEARING, AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER'S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT))/FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (INSURANCE LAW, STAY OF ARBITRATION, FRAMED ISSUE HEARING, AFFIDAVIT BY INSURER'S ATTORNEY INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY A STAY OF ARBITRATION AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING (SECOND DEPT)

ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent, Widdecombe, was injured in an accident within the meaning of the applicable uninsured motorist policy. Widdecombe was concerned because the driver, Germain, who had been drinking, should not drive. When Widdecombe attempted to take the keys, Germain drove off, dragging and injuring Widdecombe:

… [F]or purposes of an uninsured motorist endorsement, when an occurrence is — from the insured's perspective — “unexpected, unusual and unforeseen,” it qualifies as an “accident”… .  … “[T]he intentional assault of an innocent insured is an accident within the meaning of his or her own policy” … .

… [W]hatever Germain's intent and criminal liability, this incident was an accident from Widdecombe's perspective. Contrary to petitioner's contention, Widdecombe's uncontroverted testimony established that the incident “happened so fast” and, after he attempted to grab the keys, Germain said that “he was going to cut [Widdecombe's] leg off” and, as Widdecombe tried to get his leg out of the car, Germain “threw the car in drive” and “screeched” away, dragging Widdecombe. … [T]his event “was clearly an accident from the insured's point of view,” since having his leg trapped and being dragged was sudden and “unexpected, unusual and unforeseen” … . Matter of Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. (Widdecombe), 2018 NY Slip Op 00061, Third Dept 1-4-18

INSURANCE LAW (ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT))/ACCIDENT (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT))/UNINSURED MOTORIST (INSURANCE LAW, ALTHOUGH THE UNINSURED DRIVER ACTED INTENTIONALLY, THE INJURY TO THE MAN WHO WAS TRYING TO STOP THE DRIVER FROM DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED WAS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE UNINSURED MOTORIST POLICY (THIRD DEPT))

BROKER NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE INSURANCE TO COVER INJURY TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, BROKER HAD NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE GAP IN COVERAGE, $6,000,000 VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CONSTRUCTION WORKER NOT COVERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the action against the insurance broker, alleging the broker failed to procure the necessary insurance, was properly dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when he fell off a ladder and obtained a more than $6,000,000 verdict against the property owner. The property owner’s insurance included an exclusion of coverage for construction workers. The broker had sent a letter to the property owner alerting the owner to the exclusion and stating that such coverage could be purchased:

​

At best, plaintiff established that [the property owner] made a generalized request for liability coverage, and it is well-settled that such a generalized request is insufficient to satisfy the requirement that a specific request for a particular type of coverage be made … . …

​

Even assuming, without deciding, that plaintiff submitted sufficient proof demonstrating the existence of a special relationship [between the property owner and the defendant broker], the record demonstrates that defendant fulfilled any corresponding duty of advisement that it may have owed to plaintiff’s assignors based upon defendant’s unambiguous letter advising [the property owner], in writing, that additional insurance coverage for injuries to construction workers was available and could be procured upon request …  and [the property owner’s] testimony that he was aware that injuries to construction workers were specifically excluded from the policy that he purchased. Because the record is devoid of any specific request for such additional coverage ever having been made … , we find that defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it was appropriately granted … . Cromer v Rosenzweig Ins. Agency Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08926, Third Dept 12-21-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (BROKER NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE INSURANCE TO COVER INJURY TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, BROKER HAD NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE GAP IN COVERAGE, $6,000,000 VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CONSTRUCTION WORKER NOT COVERED (THIRD DEPT))/SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP (INSURANCE LAW, BROKER NOT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO PROCURE INSURANCE TO COVER INJURY TO CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, BROKER HAD NOTIFIED THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE GAP IN COVERAGE, $6,000,000 VERDICT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF CONSTRUCTION WORKER NOT COVERED (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, partially reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence, determined plaintiff’s General Business Law (deceptive business practices) cause of action should not have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff alleged the defendant insurance company pressured physicians to find no causal connection between the injury and the accident (no-fault claims). The Third Department further found that the claims for consequential damages for emotional distress and punitive damages, stemming from breach of contract, were properly dismissed. The concurring justices argued that the emotional distress was a legitimate damages-claim for breach of contract:

​

… [P]laintiff alleged that defendant engaged in a consumer-oriented pattern and practice aimed at the public at large of wrongfully denying claims for no-fault benefits by pressuring the physicians it hired to perform IMEs to provide medical reports that would support the denial of benefits and, further, that she suffered injury as a result of that practice. Such allegations are sufficient to plead a cause of action pursuant to General Business Law § 349 “‘at this early prediscovery stage'”… . …

​

 It has long been the rule that “absent a duty upon which liability can be based, there is no right of recovery for mental distress resulting from the breach of a contract-related duty”… .. As Supreme Court noted, plaintiff failed to satisfy this standard because she did not allege the existence of any relationship or duty between the parties separate from the contractual obligation. …

​

Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages was likewise properly dismissed. Punitive damages may be recovered for breach of contract “only where a defendant’s conduct was (1) actionable as an independent tort, (2) egregious, (3) directed toward the plaintiff and (4) part of a pattern directed at the public” … . Plaintiff’s allegations that defendant engaged in unfair claim settlement practices do not allege a tort independent of the parties’ contract sufficient to state a claim for recovery of punitive damages … . Brown v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 08774, Third Dept 12-14-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW ( ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW (ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES  (INSURANCE LAW, ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (BREACH OF CONTRACT, DAMAGES, ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES  (INSURANCE LAW, ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/DAMAGES (CONTRACT LAW, ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))

REINSURANCE POLICIES TO BE INTERPRETED USING STANDARD CONTRACT PRINCIPLES, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OR RULE OF CONSTRUCTION CONCERNING WHETHER A COVERAGE CAP INCLUDES ONLY LOSS, OR INCLUDES BOTH LOSS AND LITIGATION COSTS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Feinman, answered a question from the Second Circuit about how to interpret reinsurance policies. The Court of Appeals held that a 2004 decision by that court did not impose a presumption or rule of construction to be applied to reinsurance policies. Rather each reinsurance policy is to be interpreted using standard contract principles. The underlying issue in the case is whether the cap in a reinsurance policy was limited to the amount of loss, or whether the cap included litigation costs. The opinion includes a clear explanation of the two types of reinsurance policies (not summarized here):

​

… New York law does not impose either a rule, or a presumption, that a limitation on liability clause necessarily caps all obligations owed by a reinsurer, such as defense costs, without regard for the specific language employed therein. Global Reins. Corp. of Am. v Century Indem. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 08711, CtApp 12-14-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (REINSURANCE POLICIES TO BE INTERPRETED USING STANDARD CONTRACT PRINCIPLES, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OR RULE OF CONSTRUCTION CONCERNING WHETHER A COVERAGE CAP INCLUDES ONLY LOSS, OR INCLUDES BOTH LOSS AND LITIGATION COSTS (CT APP))/REINSURANCE (REINSURANCE POLICIES TO BE INTERPRETED USING STANDARD CONTRACT PRINCIPLES, THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OR RULE OF CONSTRUCTION CONCERNING WHETHER A COVERAGE CAP INCLUDES ONLY LOSS, OR INCLUDES BOTH LOSS AND LITIGATION COSTS (CT APP))

, ,

TENANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SUE LANDLORD’S INSURER FOR DENIAL OF A PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM, TENANT HAD NOT PROCURED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE LANDLORD, A PREREQUISITE FOR A DIRECT SUIT AGAINST THE INSURER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff lessee’s lawsuit against the lessor’s insurance carrier for denial of a claim for water damage was properly dismissed. Under New York law plaintiff could not sue the landlord’s carrier directly unless plaintiff first procured a judgment against the landlord which was not satisfied:

​

… [I]t was well-established under the common law that an injured party has no direct cause of action against the insurer of a tortfeasor … . That is, an injured party, as a stranger to the policy between the insured tortfeasor and its insurer, could not, at common law, bring a claim against the tortfeasor’s insurer due to the lack of privity between the injured party and the insurer, even where the injured party had obtained a judgment against the insured … . As a result of the hardships and inequities this rule created, the Legislature created a “limited statutory cause of action on behalf of injured parties directly against insurers,” which is applicable where the injured party has obtained a judgment against an insured and the judgment has gone unsatisfied for 30 days … . It is undisputed that plaintiff has not obtained a judgment against [the landlord], which is “a condition precedent to a direct action” against [the landlord’s] insurer and, thus, plaintiff cannot avail itself of this limited statutory cause of action … . Thus, even liberally construing the complaint, accepting the facts as alleged as true and affording plaintiff the benefit of every inference, plaintiff has not stated a statutory cause of action against [the insurer]. … . As plaintiff is not a named insured under the policy and did not obtain a judgment against [the landlord], Supreme Court properly granted Cincinnati’s motion dismissing the complaint due to plaintiff’s lack of standing and failure to state a cause of action … . GM Broadcasting, Inc. v Cornelius Enters., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08593, Third Dept 12-7-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (LANDLORD-TENANT, CONTRACT LAW, TENANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SUE LANDLORD’S INSURER FOR DENIAL OF A PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM, TENANT HAD NOT PROCURED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE LANDLORD, A PREREQUISITE FOR A DIRECT SUIT AGAINST THE INSURER (THIRD DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (INSURANCE LAW, CONTRACT LAW,  TENANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SUE LANDLORD’S INSURER FOR DENIAL OF A PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM, TENANT HAD NOT PROCURED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE LANDLORD, A PREREQUISITE FOR A DIRECT SUIT AGAINST THE INSURER (THIRD DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, LANDLORD-TENANT, TENANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SUE LANDLORD’S INSURER FOR DENIAL OF A PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIM, TENANT HAD NOT PROCURED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE LANDLORD, A PREREQUISITE FOR A DIRECT SUIT AGAINST THE INSURER (THIRD DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FIRE DAMAGED PROPERTY WAS PLAINTIFF’S RESIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DISCLAIMER ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this action against a homeowner’s insurance company for disclaiming coverage was properly denied. Coverage for fire damage was disclaimed based upon the allegation the property was not plaintiff’s residence. Apparently plaintiff lived elsewhere, at least part of the time, while the house was being extensively renovated:

​

Plaintiff testified that she slept at the premises on several occasions, an average of two to four nights per week, and that she intended for the premises to be her permanent residence once renovations were completed. During his deposition, Larrea [the insurer’s claim investigator] testified that he obtained a statement from plaintiff shortly after the fire in which she stated that she was not living at the premises. In opposition to the motion, defendant submitted an affidavit from Larrea, who averred that when he interviewed plaintiff by telephone eight days after the fire, she stated that at the time of the fire that she was in the process of relocating from her father’s home to the apartment and, notably, that she had not been to the premises during the two weeks immediately preceding the fire and had stayed overnight at the premises only once.

On this record, plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was properly denied. The Court of Appeals has held that evidence similar to the record in this case presented issues of fact regarding residency that precluded the grant of summary judgment … . Moreover, as Supreme Court correctly held, the contradictory statements that plaintiff made regarding the extent of her own physical presence at the premises are alone sufficient to create an issue of fact that may not be resolved by summary judgment. Sosenko v Allstate Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 08425, Third Dept 11-30-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FIRE DAMAGED PROPERTY WAS PLAINTIFF’S RESIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DISCLAIMER ACTION (THIRD DEPT))/RESIDENCE (INSURANCE LAW, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FIRE DAMAGED PROPERTY WAS PLAINTIFF’S RESIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DISCLAIMER ACTION (THIRD DEPT))/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, RESIDENCE, QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE FIRE DAMAGED PROPERTY WAS PLAINTIFF’S RESIDENCE REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DISCLAIMER ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

, ,

THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant property maintenance company’s motion for summary judgment in this ice slip and fall case was properly denied. Plaintiff’s testimony about the thickness of the ice raised a question of fact whether defendant had constructive notice of it. The property owner’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract action against the property maintenance company was properly granted. In the contract, the property maintenance company agreed to purchase liability insurance, which it did not do. An agreement to purchase insurance is not the same as a promise to indemnify and an action on the agreement need not await a judgment in the slip and fall case:

… [T]he record … includes plaintiff’s testimony that there was no lighting in the sidewalk area and no witness was able to contradict her account that there was ice in the area at the time that she fell. Further, there was no proof that anyone had performed a routine inspection of the area after 7:00 a.m. on the day of her alleged fall, i.e., at any time within 10 hours of the fall, but also no proof that there had been further accumulation of snow after the snowfall the day before. … [I]t is clear that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with regard to whether defendant had constructive notice of any dangerous conditions… . The key question to be resolved by the trier of fact is whether, during this 10-hour lapse of time … there was further precipitation that created a dangerous or unsafe condition on the sidewalk and, if so, whether there was sufficient time for defendant[s] … “to reasonably have discovered and remedied it” … .Plaintiff’s description of the thickness and extent of ice on the sidewalk, if accepted, is relevant to the factual question of how long it was present and whether it was visible and apparent such that it would have been discovered upon routine inspection, with sufficient time to remedy it … . Calvitti v 40 Garden, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08241, Third Dept 11-22-17

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, THICKNESS OF THE ICE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (SLIP AND FALL, PROMISE TO PURCHASE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY (THIRD DEPT))

INSURANCE LAW 3240 ALLOWS A DIRECT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST INSURERS IF THE INSUREDS AND RISKS ARE IN NEW YORK, NOT ONLY WHEN THE POLICY IS ISSUED OR DELIVERED IN NEW YORK (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three judge dissenting opinion, reversing the appellate division, determined several motions to dismiss in this insurance-coverage dispute should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was killed when a DHL delivery truck driven by an employee of another company crossed the center line, causing a head-on crash. At issue was the reach of Insurance Law 3240 with respect to an insurance policy issued to DHL by AAIC. The appellate division held that Insurance Law 3240 did not allow suit because the policy was not “issued or delivered in this state.” The Court of Appeals held the suit is allowed under Insurance Law 3240 because the insureds and risks are located in New York (two other issues, whether the DHL truck was a “hired auto” and whether it was driven with “permission” are not summarized here):

​

AAIC adopts the Appellate Division’s rationale that because AAIC’s policy was issued in New Jersey and delivered in Washington and then in Florida, it was neither issued nor delivered in New York, and therefore plaintiff cannot recover from AAIC pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420. …

Insurance Law § 3420 allows a limited cause of action on behalf of injured parties directly against insurers. Section 3420 applies to policies and contracts “issued or delivered in this state” … . Insurance Law § 3420 does not define the term “issued or delivered in this state,” but other provisions of the Insurance Law are instructive: “[T]he proper interpretation of the term ‘issued or delivered in this state’ refers both to a policy issued for delivery in New York, and a policy issued for delivery outside of New York” … . In Preserver, we interpreted section 3420 (d), which then required insurers to provide written notice when disclaiming coverage under policies “issued for delivery” in New York. We held that “[a] policy is ‘issued for delivery’ in New York if it covers both insureds and risks located in this state” (10 NY3d at 642). Thus, under Preserver, “issued for delivery” was interpreted to mean where the risk to be insured was located — not where the policy document itself was actually handed over or mailed to the insured. We interpreted section 3420 to provide a benefit — deliberately in derogation of the common law — to New Yorkers whenever a policy covers “insureds and risks located in this state” … . Applying the Preserver standard to the facts of this case, it is clear that DHL is “located in” New York because it has a substantial business presence and creates risks in New York. It is even clearer that DHL purchased liability insurance covering vehicle-related risks arising from vehicles delivering its packages in New York, because its insurance agreements say so. Carlson v American Intl. Group, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08163, CtApp 11-20-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURANCE LAW 3240 ALLOWS A DIRECT CAUSE OF ACTION IF THE INSUREDS AND RISKS ARE IN NEW YORK, NOT ONLY WHEN THE POLICY IS ISSUED OR DELIVERED IN NEW YORK (CT APP))/INSURANCE LAW 3240  (INSURANCE LAW 3240 ALLOWS A DIRECT CAUSE OF ACTION IF THE INSUREDS AND RISKS ARE IN NEW YORK, NOT ONLY WHEN THE POLICY IS ISSUED OR DELIVERED IN NEW YORK (CT APP))

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