In Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford vs. Cook, 7 N.Y.3d 131 (2006) the Court held that an insurer is obligated to defend its policyholder in a wrongful death action resulting from a shooting committed in self defense. If a claim against the insured is within the "embrace of the policy", the insurer must come forward to defend its insured no matter how groundless, false or baseless the suit may be.

In Hoffend & Sons, Inc. vs. Rose & Kiernan, Inc., 7 N.Y.3d 152 (2006) the Court held that a general request for insurance coverage will not satisfy the requirement of a specific request for a certain type of coverage necessary to impose duty on an insurance broker.

In Abraham vs. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 29 A.D.3d 345, 815 N.Y.S.2d 38 (1st Dept., 2006) a bus company was not liable for injuries sustained by a passenger who slipped and fell alongside a bus. The Court noted that the accumulation of water was a weather related condition occurring during an ongoing storm for which there was no liability, and general knowledge that water accumulates during a storm is not sufficient to provide constructive notice.

In O'Sullivan vs. IDI Construction Company, et al, ---N.E.2d --- , 2006 WL 2504409 (2006) the Court of Appeals held that the lower courts properly dismissed the plaintiff's Labor Law §241(6) cause of action because the electrical pipe or conduit that plaintiff tripped over was not an integral part of the construction.

In Schroeder vs. Kalenak Painting & Paper Hanging, Inc., et al, ---N.E.2d ----, 2006 WL 2471584 (2006) the Court agreed with the Fourth Department that the plaintiff's activities of hanging wallpaper were not part of a larger repair project, as would allow those activities to fall within the ambit of the scaffold law. Therefore the worker could not recover for her personal injuries sustained while wallpapering.

In Morejon vs. Rais Construction Company, 7 N.Y.3d 203 (2006) the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The decedent was fatally injured while delivering building materials to the defendant when a roll of shingles fell from a roof striking decedent in the head. The Court ruled that res ipsa loquitur may not be used as the basis for granting summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff on the issue of liability and questions of fact remain.

In New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Co. vs. Aguirre, ---N.E.2d ----, 2006 WL 1593955 (2006) the Court of Appeals held that an insurer's failure to provide a notice of denial as soon as is reasonably possible precludes an effective disclaimer of coverage. This is so even where the policy holder's own notice of the incident to its insurer is untimely.

In Countrywide Insurance Company vs. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 6 N.Y.3d 172 (2006) uncontradicted statements of both vehicle owner and driver that driver was operating the vehicle without the owner's permission will not necessarily warrant summary judgment for the owner on a claim brought under Vehicle and Traffic Law 388. Whether summary judgment is warranted depends on the strength and plausibility of the disavowals and whether they leave room for doubt is best left for a jury.

In Topor vs. Erie Insurance Company, 28 A.D.3d 1199, 816 N.Y.S.2d 631 (4th Dept., 2006) the Fourth Department concluded that an insurance policy provision was ambiguous, but nevertheless found in favor of the defendant. The policy excluded damage caused by rotting and the plaintiff acknowledged as much, however offered that rotting applies to wood and not brick and mortar, as was the case here. The defendant argued that rotting may occur to all sorts of matter and that the plaintiff even conceded (apparently to his detriment) that rotting in one form or another caused the loss should justify the denial.

In Murray vs. Lancaster Motor Sports, Inc., et al 27 A.D.3d 1193, 812 N.Y.S.2d 726 (4th Dept., 2006) the Fourth Department held that the defendant building owners were not liable under Labor Law §200 for the death of a construction worker who was electrocuted while unloading drywall. The court noted that the dangerous condition resulted from the method used by the worker to unload the drywall and the owners did not supervise or control that work.

Prepared by Nicholas L. Mineo