About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/aliliabil9935 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations LIABILITY INSURANCE CHAPTER 1. BASIC LIABILITY INSURANCE CONTRACT RULES TOPIC 1. INTERPRETATION § 3. The Plain-Meaning Rule W.D.N.Y.2023. Cit. in disc. After subcontractor's workers sued general contractor for injuries sustained at a work site, general contractor filed a third-party action against subcontractor's excess-liability insurer, seeking a declaration that it was an additional insured and that the policy's employer's liability exclusion for injuries arising out of employment by the insured did not bar its claim for coverage. This court granted in part general contractor's motion for summary judgment, holding that the exclusion was ambiguous and had to be construed against insurer, as its drafter; thus, employment by the insured referred to general contractor, rather than to subcontractor, because that interpretation was less favorable for insurer. In making its decision, the court noted that, while its conclusion that the meaning of the policy language depended on the party seeking coverage was contrary to the plain meaning principle generally applied in the interpretation of policy terms under Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance § 3, it was consistent with controlling Second Circuit precedent. Reidy Contracting Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, 683 F.Supp.3d 290, 300. § 4. Ambiguous Terms W.D.N.Y.2023. Cit. in sup. After subcontractor's workers sued general contractor for injuries sustained at a work site, general contractor filed a third-party action against subcontractor's excess-liability insurer, seeking a declaration that it was an additional insured and that the policy's employer's liability exclusion for injuries arising out of employment by the insured did not bar its claim for coverage. This court granted in part general contractor's motion for summary judgment, holding that the exclusion was ambiguous and had to be construed against insurer, as its drafter, under the principle of contra proferentem set forth in Restatement of Liability Insurance § 4; thus, employment by the insured referred to general contractor, rather than to subcontractor, because that interpretation was less favorable for insurer, and the exclusion did not apply, because general contractor did not employ the injured workers. Reidy Contracting Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, 683 F.Supp.3d 290, 301. COPYRIGHT 02025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.