HNRK Coverage Corner
On October 18, 2019, Justice Crane of the New York County Supreme Court issued a decision in Cookies on Fulton, Inc. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2019 NY Slip Op 33111(U), holding that an exclusion for claims arising from “any construction or renovation-related activity except for janitorial or maintenance related work” did not excuse a CGL carrier’s duty to defend the insured business owner in a lawsuit for injuries sustained in the course of “changing light fixtures.”
The vague allegations in the complaint (typical in personal injury actions) “suggest[ed] that the accident was construction-related[,] which would bar coverage.” However, as readers of this blog know, the duty to defend is triggered “where the insurer has actual knowledge of facts establishing [] a reasonable possibility” of coverage—even if those facts do not appear in the complaint. See City of New York v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 145 A.D.3d 614, 617 (1st Dep’t 2016). Here, documents outside the complaint suggested that the injured worker “may have been performing routine maintenance work”—“changing light fixtures”—at the time of the injury. The insurer argued that changing a light fixture (unlike changing a lightbulb) constituted “a construction or renovation activity” for purposes of New York’s Labor Law, and therefore fell within the exclusion. Justice Crane disagreed, and granted summary judgment to the insured on the duty to defend, explaining:
Aspen’s reliance on cases applying the Labor Law is misplaced. Those cases may be instructive to some degree, but they are not controlling on the question of what distinguishes construction/renovation activity from janitorial/maintenance work in this action. Rather, it is the language of the Policy that governs. In this connection, an insurance agreement is subject to principles of contract interpretation and as with the construction of contracts generally, unambiguous provisions of an insurance contract must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and the interpretation of such provisions is a question of law for the court. Moreover, when it comes to exclusions from coverage, the exclusion must be specific and clear in order to be enforced and ambiguities in exclusions are to be construed most strongly against the insurer. The Aspen policy exclusion does not specifically define what constitutes construction, renovation, janitorial or maintenance work. Construing the language against the insurer, the court finds that the changing of light fixtures may fall within the ambit of maintenance work. The ordinary meanings of "construction" and "renovation" implicate [] substantially more ambitious undertakings.
This decision illustrates the important principle that undefined terms in an exclusionary clause are construed narrowly in favor of the insured.
- Partner
Bradley Nash represents policyholders in insurance disputes and other parties in complex commercial litigation in state and federal courts in New York and across the country. Brad focuses his practice on insurance recovery for ...
Search Blog
Recent Posts
- Is Carbon a “Pollutant”? — The Supreme Courts of Alaska and Hawaii Receive Certified Questions Regarding Scope of Pollution Exclusions in Liability Policies
- Court Rules That D&O Policy’s “Bump-Up” Exclusion Does Not Apply to Merger Transaction
- Eleventh Circuit Rules Insurer Cannot Recoup Defense Costs Under Duty to Defend Policy
- Federal Court Declines to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Insurer’s Declaratory Judgment Action That Raised “Novel Issue of Ohio Insurance Law”
- Bankruptcy Court Lifts Automatic Stay to Permit Officers of Silicon Valley Bank to Access D&O Coverage
- E&O Policy Exclusion Bars Coverage for Negligence Claim Against Law Firm Arising from Third Party’s Misappropriation of Client’s Funds
- New Jersey Appellate Court Holds That Policy’s War Exclusion Did Not Apply to State-Sponsored Cyberattack
- New York Court Discusses Appellate Division Split Over Recoupment of Defense Costs Under a Duty to Defend Policy
- Delaware Law Governs D&O Policy Issued to Delaware Corporation Doing Business Outside the State
- Ohio Supreme Court Rules Computer Software Cannot Be Subject To “Physical Loss” Or “Physical Damage” Under Insured’s Property Insurance Policy
Popular Categories
- Occurrence/Accident
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- D&O Policies
- Policy Exclusions
- Pollution Exclusion
- CGL Policies
- E&O Policies
- Cyber Coverage
- Additional Insured Endorsement
- Business Interruption Coverage
- Construction
- Bad Faith Claims Handling
- COVID-19
- Indemnification and Advancement
- Damages
- Excess Insurance
- Duty to Cooperate
- Advertising Injury
- Rules of Interpretation
- Related Claims
- Personal and Advertising Injury
- Covered Loss
- Insurance Brokers
- Confict of Laws
- Discovery/Disclosure
- Appraisal
- Attorney Fees
- Assignment of Claims
- Disability discrimination
- Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
- Notice
- Privilege/Work Product
- Priority of Coverage
- Intellectual Property
- Contracts
- Professional Malpractice
- Rescission
- Intervention/Joinder
- Subrogation
- Settlements
- General Business Law
- Unfair Claims Settlement Practices
Archives
- September 2023
- August 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- September 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- November 2021
- June 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018