You are here: / Insurance Law
, ,

THE SHORTER LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WAS NOT FAIR AND REASONABLE; THE MOTION TO DISMISS IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in the fire-insurance breach of contract case, determined the contractual limitations period in the insurance policy was not fair and reasonable:

“Article 2 of the CPLR (‘Limitations of Time’), provides that ‘[a]n action . . . must be commenced within the time specified in this article unless . . . a shorter time is prescribed by written agreement'” … . “‘[A]n agreement which modifies the Statute of Limitations by specifying a shorter, but reasonable, period within which to commence an action is enforceable'” … . “‘[T]he period of time within which an action must be brought . . . should be fair and reasonable, in view of the circumstances of each particular case. . . . The circumstances, not the time, must be the determining factor'” … . “‘Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced'” … .

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the modified limitations period in the subject insurance policy was not fair and reasonable. The insurance policy provided that “[n]o action can be brought unless the policy provisions have been complied with and the action is started within one year after the date of loss” and that “[w]e will pay no more than the actual cash value of the damage until actual repair or replacement is complete. Once actual repair or replacement is complete, we will settle the loss.” Here, the one-year limitation was unreasonable since the condition precedent, completion of actual repair or replacement, was not within the plaintiffs’ control and could not be met within that period … . “‘A “limitation period” that expires before suit can be brought is not really a limitation period at all, but simply a nullification of the claim'” … . Filasky v Andover Cos., 2024 NY Slip Op 04545, Second Dept 9-25-25

Practice Point: Parties can agree on shorter limitations periods. Here the limitations period in the subject fire insurance policy expired before suit could be brought rendering it unfair, unreasonable and unenforceable.

 

, ,

THE UNINSURED PLAINTIFF WAS AWARDED TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, INCLUDING FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS, AFTER TRIAL FOR AN INJURY WHICH LEFT HIM PARALYZED; DEFENDANT REQUESTED A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 4545 BECAUSE PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER FUTURE MEDICAL COSTS UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT; IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A COLLATERAL SOURCE HEARING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ventura, in a matter of first impression, determined defendant in this negligence action was entitled to a hearing pursuant to CPLR 4545 concerning damages awarded for future medical expenses. Plaintiff, a bicyclist, was struck by a railroad tie which was dropped from above, and was paralyzed. Plaintiff was awarded tens of millions of dollars after trial. Defendant argued the uninsured plaintiff may be entitled to future medical costs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and requested a CPLR 4545 collateral source hearing:

This appeal presents a question of first impression in New York involving the effect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on collateral source offsets in personal injury actions, to wit: whether a defendant may be entitled to a collateral source hearing pursuant to CPLR 4545 for the purpose of establishing that an uninsured plaintiff’s future medical expenses will, with reasonable certainty, be covered in part by a private health insurance policy, as long as the plaintiff takes the steps necessary to procure the policy. Among other reasons, since providing a defendant an offset under such circumstances would serve the “ultimate goal of CPLR 4545 to eliminate duplicate recovery by a plaintiff” … , we conclude that the defendant was entitled to a hearing pursuant to CPLR 4545 to demonstrate the extent, if any, to which the plaintiff’s future medical expenses would be reduced by available insurance coverage. We express no opinion, however, about the appropriate outcome following the hearing.

… [W]e modify the amended judgment by deleting the award of damages for the plaintiff’s future medical expenses and … remit this matter to the Supreme Court … , for a collateral source hearing on the issue of those expenses, with entry of an appropriate second amended judgment thereafter. Liciaga v New York City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 04257, Second Dept 8-21-24

Practice Point: If an uninsured plaintiff, who was awarded damages to cover future medical costs, may be entitled to future medical costs under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, defendant may be entitled to a CPLR 4545 collateral source hearing.​

 

,

WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXCESS COVERAGE POLICIES COVERING THE SAME RISK, THE EXCESS COVERAGE CLAUSES CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, explained how multiple “excess coverage” insurance policies should be applied:

“[W]here there are multiple policies covering the same risk, and each generally purports to be excess to the other, the excess coverage clauses are held to cancel out each other and each insurer contributes in proportion to its [policy] limit,” unless to do so would distort the plain meaning of the policies … . By contrast, “if one party’s policy is primary with respect to the other policy, then the party issuing the primary policy must pay up to the limits of its policy before the excess coverage becomes effective”  … . Kolli v Kaleida Health, 2024 NY Slip Op 03998, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The excess coverage clauses in multiple excess coverage policies covering the same risk cancel each other out.

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ARE DISFAVORED; HERE THE ISSUES IN EACH MOTION DID NOT OVERLAP AND APPELLANTS OFFERED A SUFFICIENT REASON. I.E. THE FIRST MOTION PRECEDED DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION IN WHICH HE ADMITTED SWERVING INTO APPELLANTS’ VEHICLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined appellants’ second summary judgment motion in this traffic accident case did not violate the prohibition of successive motions. The first motion dealt with whether plaintiff suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law. The second motion addressed defendant’s liability. Appellants demonstrated a sufficient reason for the failure to include both issues in a single motion, i.e., the first motion was made before defendant was deposed and admitted swerving into appellants’ vehicle:

… [A]ppellants’ first motion for summary judgment was on the issue of serious injury. Their second motion was on the issue of liability. The issue of whether plaintiff sustained a serious injury within the meaning of the Insurance Law, “is a threshold matter separate from the issue of fault” and which must, therefore, be determined separately … . “[S]erious injury is quintessentially an issue of damages, not liability” … . Under the facts presented, appellants’ failure to raise the issue of liability in their first motion for summary judgment does not run afoul of the general disfavor of successive motions since the issue of serious injury was not germane to the issue of liability … .

Appellants have also established the existence of sufficient cause … . Here, the record indicates that the first motion for summary judgment was filed prior to the deposition testimony of defendant-respondent Phanor. In his testimony Phanor admitted that he swerved into appellant’s vehicle in order to avoid another unidentified vehicle. Priester v Phanor, 2024 NY Slip Op 03554, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Here the fact that successive summary judgment motions are generally prohibited was overlooked. The issues in the two motions did not overlap (one dealt with plaintiff’s damages, the other with defendant’s liability). And the first motion was brought before the deposition in which defendant admitted swerving into appellants’ vehicle.

 

,

IN THIS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CASE, THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION IN THE INSURERS’ POLICIES APPLIED AND THE INSURERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE INSURED OIL COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the pollution exclusion in the plaintiffs’ insurance policies applied and plaintiffs were not required to defend and indemnify the defendant, which allegedly caused a gasoline additive (MTBE) to pollute groundwater. The fact that the additive was a legal substance required by the EPA did not matter:

… [I]t is clear that even if MTBE was not a pollutant in the context of its use as a gasoline additive, it was a pollutant in the context of its release into groundwater … . * * *

Qualified pollution exclusions are characterized by an exception for pollution where the discharge or release of the pollutant is “sudden and accidental” … . The terms “sudden” and “accidental” each “have separate meanings, [both] of which must be established for the exception to nullify the pollution coverage exclusion” … .. “[T]he meaning of sudden in the pollution exclusion exception” has a “temporal quality” (id. [emphasis omitted]), which is only met where the discharge occurs “abruptly or within a short timespan, of a significant quantity of the pollutant sufficient to have some potentially damaging environmental effect” … .

Here, with respect to the plaintiffs’ … policies that contained qualified pollution exclusions, the defendant failed to meet its burden to “demonstrate a reasonable interpretation of the underlying complaint[s] potentially bringing the claims within the sudden and accidental discharge exception to exclusion of pollution coverage, or to show that extrinsic evidence exists that the discharge was in fact sudden and accidental” … . In other words, the type of pollution alleged, which occurred undetected over many years, was not sudden within the meaning of the applicable law … . St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. v Getty Props. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 03510, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: A “pollution exclusion” in an insurance policy applies where, as here, the pollution occurs over years, as opposed to occurring suddenly and unexpectedly.

Practice Point: A substance can be legal and approved for use in gasoline by the EPA but constitute a “pollutant” when found in groundwater.

 

,

AVILA WAS INJURED WHEN HER SPOUSE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR AND STRUCK A PARKED CAR; THE POLICY EXPRESSLY STATED COVERAGE DID NOT EXTEND TO THE INSURED’S SPOUSE; IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION THE INSURER IS NOT REQUIRED TO COVER THE INSURED’S SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).

he Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the uninsured motorist claim by the driver’s spouse was precluded based on the policy. Avila was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her spouse who lost control of the car:

Pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(g)(1), “no policy or contract shall be deemed to insure against any liability of an insured because of death of or injuries to his or her spouse or because of injury to, or destruction of property of his or her spouse unless express provision relating specifically thereto is included in the policy.” “‘[I]n the absence of an express provision in an insured’s policy, a carrier is not required to provide insurance coverage for injuries sustained by an insured’s spouse'” … . This provision creates “a statutory presumption that interspousal liability is excluded from coverage unless an express provision relating specifically thereto is included in the policy” … . Moreover, here, the language of GEICO’s policy provides that its liability coverage does not apply “[t]o any insured for bodily injury to the spouse of that insured.” Thus, Avila’s uninsured motorist claim was precluded … . Matter of Government Employees Ins. Co. v Avila, 2024 NY Slip Op 03481, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the insured, Avila’s spouse, lost control of the car and hit a parked car. Avila was a passenger and was injured. The policy did not include a provision expressly covering the insured’s spouse. In addition, the policy expressly stated the insured’s spouse was not covered. Avila’s uninsured motorist claim was precluded.

 

, , ,

STATEMENTS DEFENDANT MADE TO HIS INSURANCE CARRIER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ARE NOT DISCOVERABLE (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this traffic-accident case, determined plaintiff’s request for discovery of statements made by defendant to his insurance carrier should have been denied:

The statements sought in plaintiff’s cross-motion constitute materials “produced solely in connection with the report of an accident to a liability insurance carrier . . . with respect to plaintiff’s claim [that] are not discoverable under CPLR 3101 (g), but rather are conditionally immunized from discovery under CPLR 3101 (d) (2)” … . Plaintiff failed to establish either that he has a “substantial need of the materials” or that he is “unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means” (CPLR 3101 [d] [2] …). Fusco v Hansen, 2024 NY Slip Op 03262, Fourth Dept 6-14-24

Practice Point; Here in this traffic-accident case, plaintiff did not demonstrate a need for discovery of statements made by defendant to his insurance carrier (CPLR 3101(d)(2)).

 

, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON ICE AND SNOW AFTER GETTING OUT OF A VEHICLE RESULTED FROM OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE SUCH THAT THE INSURER IS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a partial dissent, determined the insurer, Progressive, was obligated to defend the owner of a vehicle for injuries suffered by a passenger (Malone) who slipped and fell on ice and snow after getting out of the car. The question was whether the injury resulted from “operation” of the vehicle:

“Use of an automobile encompasses more than simply driving it, and includes all necessary incidental activities such as entering and leaving its confines” … . While a claim that an accident occurred during unloading “does not require a showing that the vehicle itself produced the injury . . . , it is insufficient to show merely that the accident occurred during the period of loading or unloading. Rather, the accident must be the result of some act or omission related to the use of the vehicle” … .

… Malone specifically alleged in the underlying action that Anthony (the vehicle-owner’s son) parked his vehicle in a negligent manner on a slippery surface and that such negligence was a proximate cause of her accident. Progressive submitted an affidavit from Malone … in which she stated, “I slipped on the snowy and icy condition as I was taking my first steps toward the house. I dropped my child and my legs slid, along the gradient, underneath the CAPERNA Vehicle.” Progressive further submitted Malone’s deposition testimony in the underlying action, which demonstrated that the door of the vehicle was open and that she had only taken two steps away from the vehicle when she slipped and fell on snow and ice located on the lawn. As such, Progressive failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law declaring that the accident was not a covered event, as there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Malone had completed unloading the vehicle. As there are allegations that the vehicle was used negligently and that such negligence contributed to the accident, Progressive was not entitled to summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify Arthur (the vehicle owner) in the underlying action … . Matter of Progressive Dr. Ins. v Malone, 2024 NY Slip Op 03178, Second Dept 6-12-24

Practice Point: “Operation” of a vehicle may include parking the vehicle in a manner which makes getting out of it dangerous. Here a passenger slipped and fell on ice and snow after getting out of the parked vehicle and the insurer was obligated to defend the owner of the vehicle.

 

,

THE INSURER’S OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BASED UPON THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that although the insurer (Everest) was required to defend the plaintiff (CCM) in the underlying action, the ruling that Everest must indemnify CCM was premature:

Supreme Court should not have found that Everest was required to indemnify CCM. Although Everest concedes that it must defend CCM, “the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify,” because only the latter “is determined by the actual basis for the insured’s liability to a third person and is not measured by the allegations of the pleadings” … . In the underlying action, there has been no determination whether the plaintiff’s injury was “caused, in whole or in part, by” the acts or omissions of the named insured or of those acting on its behalf … . Therefore, any declaration of the duty to indemnify was premature ( … see … Axis Surplus Ins. Co. v GTJ Co., Inc., 139 AD3d 604, 605 [1st Dept 2016] [“It is after the resolution of that action where the extent of plaintiff’s indemnification obligations can be fully determined”]). Harleysville Ins. Co. v United Fire Protection, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02663, First Dept 5-14-24

Practice Point: An insurer’s obligation to indemnify cannot be determined based on the allegations in the pleadings.

 

,

THE DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY IS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND PLAINTIFF PEDIATRICIAN IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION BY A FORMER PATIENT ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE DURING A PHYSICAL EXAM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant insurance company was obligated to defend plaintiff pediatrician who stands accused of the sexual abuse of a former patient:

Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s [summary judgment] motion and granted defendant’s cross-motion [for summary judgment] on the grounds that the complaint in the underlying action did not assert claims arising from a “medical incident” or “professional services,” as those terms are defined in the subject insurance policy, and in any event that the policy’s exclusion for sexual assault precluded coverage. * * *

… [A]lthough the complaint in the underlying action primarily alleges that plaintiff sexually abused his former patient during a medical examination, it also contains “facts or allegations” that bring the claim “potentially within the protection purchased” for claims arising from professional services rendered by plaintiff, thus triggering the duty to defend … . For instance, the underlying complaint alleges that plaintiff improperly diagnosed, cared for and treated the former patient in question, and failed to provide her with “proper and appropriate pediatric care.” The underlying complaint further alleges that plaintiff inserted his finger into the former patient’s vagina “without gloves,” suggesting that perhaps such action would have been medically proper had plaintiff been wearing gloves. Without any context or details regarding the nature of the medical treatment being provided by plaintiff at the time of the alleged improper touching of the former patient, we cannot categorically conclude that the underlying complaint is devoid of facts or allegations that potentially bring the former patient’s claims within the protection purchased by plaintiff in the subject liability policy. Mscichowski v MLMIC Ins. Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 02391, Fourth Dept 5-3-24

Practice Point: As long as some of the allegations in a complaint arguably fall within the protection of the insurance policy, the insurer is obligated to defend the insured.

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy