Narob Development Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America

219 A.D.2d 454, 631 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9138
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 7, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 454 (Narob Development Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Narob Development Corp. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 219 A.D.2d 454, 631 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 26, 1994, after jury trial, in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $187,695, with interest from April 4, 1992, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the complaint dismissed, without costs.

The policy exclusion at issue barred recovery by plaintiffs, and the trial court erred in denying defendant a directed verdict. After finding that the evidence presented at trial established that the retaining wall collapsed due to plaintiffs’ defective workmanship and that the first sentence of "Exclusion 9” of the insurance policy barred recovery by plaintiffs, the trial court misinterpreted the second sentence, which provides an exception to the exclusion and reads as follows: "Workmanship or Materials We won’t cover any loss caused by or resulting from error, omission or deficiency in workmanship or materials as respects the cost of making good such error, omission or deficiency. However, we will cover resulting physical loss caused by or to the Covered Property.” (Emphasis added.)

Where a property insurance policy contains an exclusion with an exception for ensuing loss, courts have sought to assure that the exception does not supersede the exclusion by disallowing coverage for ensuing loss directly related to the original excluded risk (see, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Yates, 344 F2d 939; 80 Broad St. Co. v United States Fire Ins. Co., 88 Misc 2d 706, 707, affd 54 AD2d 888; Acme Galvanizing Co. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 221 Cal App 3d 170, 270 Cal Rptr 405). Here, inasmuch as there was no collateral or subsequent damage or loss as a result of the collapse of the free-standing retaining wall, the exception should not have been at issue. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fifth Ave. Props., LLC v. AIG Prop. Cas. Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 04544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Ewald v. Erie Ins. Co. of N.Y.
214 A.D.3d 1382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Fruchthandler v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.
2019 NY Slip Op 2502 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Arch Specialty Insurance
124 F. Supp. 3d 264 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Lantheus Medical Imaging, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
255 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D. New York, 2015)
Broome County v. The Travelers Indemnity Company
125 A.D.3d 1241 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
RSUI Indemnity Co. v. RCG Group (USA)
539 F. App'x 3 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Rapid Park Industries v. Great Northern Insurance
502 F. App'x 40 (Second Circuit, 2012)
PLATEK, FREDERICK J. v. TOWN OF HAMBURG
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Platek v. Town of Hamburg
97 A.D.3d 1118 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Friedberg v. Chubb and Son, Inc.
800 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Minnesota, 2011)
Vision One, LLC v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance
158 Wash. App. 91 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2010)
Vision One v. PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INS.
241 P.3d 429 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2010)
Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds
202 S.W.3d 744 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co.
845 So. 2d 161 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
ITT Industries, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance
303 A.D.2d 177 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Montefiore Medical Center v. American Protection Insurance
226 F. Supp. 2d 470 (S.D. New York, 2002)
Yale University v. Cigna Insurance
224 F. Supp. 2d 402 (D. Connecticut, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
219 A.D.2d 454, 631 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/narob-development-corp-v-insurance-co-of-north-america-nyappdiv-1995.