![]() Wakelin, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts interpreted an exclusion in a homeowner’s policy in addressing whether deaths caused by the improper use of a portable generator at an uninsured premises arose out of the uninsured premises. In Green Mountain Insurance Company, Inc. Here, the landlord was not added as an additional insured until after the accident that was the subject of the lawsuit therefore the insurer had no duty to defend and indemnify the landlord. (March 20, 2020) The court held that an insurer can be relieved of its duty to defend by establishing, as a matter of law, that no possible factual or legal basis exists upon which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify the insured. Utica First Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, 2nd Department, addressed whether an insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify a landlord as an additional insured under a policy issued to the tenant of the subject premises. The Burlington policy included as an additional insured, "any person(s) or organization(s) with whom you agreed, because of a written contract, written agreement or permit, to provide insurance such as is afforded under this Coverage Part." The Second Department held that 653 Tenth was not an additional insured under the policy issued to Rock Scaffolding, given the absence of contractual privity between Rock Scaffolding and 653 Tenth. Burlington Insurance Company, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, 2nd Department, addressed whether Burlington Insurance Company was obligated to defend and indemnify 653 Tenth Avenue, LLC as an additional insured under a policy issued to Rock Scaffolding in an underlying tort action. The court held that if an insured makes timely payment to a broker and the insurer delivers the policy to the broker pursuant to the broker's request, the insurer may not cancel the policy based on nonpayment of premiums if the broker did not remit the payment to the insurer. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Department, addressed the issue of cancellation of policies based on nonpayment of the premiums.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |