New York Insurance Law Changes – July 2022 | JD Supra

The Second Circuit Holds That Insurers Are Barred from Relying on Exclusions Because of Unreasonable Delays When the Foundation Is, or Should Be, Appearing.

In December 2015, Luis Alberto was working on a construction project at an insurance company when a wall collapsed, causing him to fall to his death. In December 2017, Alberto’s estate sued an insured whose insurance company, Golden Insurance Company, protected the insured by maintaining the right to refuse coverage. A January 2018 insurance letter advised policyholders that the removal of the insured’s work on the exterior of the three-story building was “likely to be a foreclosure” but that it was “uncertain[at] time” whether the insured work was outside the building. The letter also stated that further redundancies were to be made. Two years later, in February 2020, the insurer filed a motion to declare void. The United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit on Tuesday granted summary judgment to the insurer on the basis that the insurer did not file a timely denial as required by New York Insurance Law §3420(d), which requires a timely denial of claims involving death and claims. of personal injury resulting from New York accidents and bring under New York law. Finding relief for the insured, the court held that the insurer delayed its denial after learning of the lawsuit, even though the basis for it was, or should have been, apparent. The Second Circuit rejected the insurer’s argument that it was unclear whether the accident occurred outside the building because the insurer failed to explain “why anything beyond a cursory investigation was necessary to determine” this “important — but straightforward — fact.” Regarding the insurer’s argument that it should protect the insured even if the external investigation supports that there is no such thing, the Second Circuit responded that the insurer “fails to adequately explain why it could not bring this action to stop the coverage and terminate everything.” a duty to protect years ago. ” [Golden Ins. Co. v. Ingrid House LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 16343 (2d Cir. June 14, 2022).]

District Court Held Subcontractor’s Insurer Not Obliged to Provide Additional Insurance to Insurer for Accident Involving Subcontractor’s Employee.

Hanjo Construction, general contractor (GC), affiliated with Manhattan Steel Design (Sub), which added GC as an additional insured under its policy with United Specialty for liability for bodily injury “occurring, in whole or in part, with” acts or omissions of Sub or acting on behalf of Sub. A Sub worker was injured while doing construction work, and sued GC. His complaint alleges that he was injured while working with Sub when he was struck by an object that fell from a work platform and that GC was negligent and violated the New York Labor Law. United Specialty denied GC’s request for additional insurance coverage under the Sub’s policy, and GC and its insurer filed suit against United Specialty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The GC held that because the complaint and the facts of the case show that the plaintiff was injured “in the course of his duties” on the Sub, the complaint establishes that the accident was caused by his act or omission. , which led to United Specialty’s defense mission. The court rejected this argument and stated that GC did not have the right to increase the insurance, agreeing with United Specialty that the “principle of use” of the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove that the employer may have caused the injury, explaining that there was no claim that the Sub created the conditions that caused the injury or that the Sub was negligent or caused the injury. [Southwest Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110910 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2022).]