HNRK Coverage Corner

On February 13, 2024, the New York Appellate Division, First Department, issued a decision in Bay Plaza Mall, LLC v. Argonaut Ins. Co., holding that evidence regarding an insurer’s handling of “prior similar claims” was a relevant consideration in construing a CGL policy.

This coverage action arose from “two underlying personal injury actions brought by individuals who were injured while working on a project at premises owned by plaintiffs.” Affirming the motion court’s decision denying the insurers’ motion for summary judgment, the First Department noted that ...

On September 16, 2020, Judge Failla of the SDNY issued a decision in Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Streb, Inc., Case No. 19-CV-366 (KFP), ruling that a CGL carrier had no duty to defend a personal injury action because undisputed “extrinsic evidence” (i.e., facts not alleged in the complaint) conclusively established that an exclusion applied.

The insured (Streb, Inc.), a not-for-profit dance and performance company, was a defendant in a personal injury action brought by a participant in an aerobics class who was severely injured on a trampoline.  Streb’s CGL policy ...

On April 9, 2020, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Brooklyn Center of Psychotherapy, Inc. v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., Docket No. 19-2266-cv, certifying the following question to the New York Court of Appeals:  Can a discrimination claim based on a “failure to accommodate” theory trigger coverage under a general commercial liability policy?

The coverage dispute in this case arose from a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by a deaf woman, who alleged that the Brooklyn Center for Psychotherapy discriminated against her, in violation of state and federal ...

On March 26, 2020, the New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal from the First Department's decision in J.P. Morgan Sec., Inc v. Vigilant Ins. Co.,126 A.D.3d 76 (1st Dep't 2018), which held that that a disgorgement payment made as part of the settlement of an SEC enforcement action was a “penalty” and therefore did not qualify as a covered “loss” under a CGL policy. This case has a long history. See our post about the First Department's decision here.

On February 7, 2020, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Lepore v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 19‐778‐cv, holding that a CGL policy exclusion for any suit alleging “an infringement or violation of any intellectual property right” was triggered even though the underlying complaint did not contain a direct IP-infringement claim. The Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to the insurer, explaining:

Plaintiffs argue that because no violation of IP rights was asserted in the NL suit, the IP exclusion must be read narrowly, and ...