The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority
29 N.Y.3d 313 | New York Court of Appeals | 2017
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Burlington Insurance Company refused to cover injuries to NYC Transit Authority (the additional insured) under a policy issued to Breaking Solutions Inc. (the named insured). The New York Court of Appeals ruled that an additional insured endorsement only covers injuries that are proximately caused by the named insured's negligence, not injuries caused solely by the additional insured's own negligence. This means you cannot use your subcontractor's insurance to cover your own mistakes—the subcontractor must actually be at fault for the injury.
Key Takeaways
- •Additional insured coverage requires proximate causation, not just a causal link. Your client cannot collect under your policy if they caused the injury themselves.
- •Review your insurance endorsements carefully. Broad language like 'caused in whole or in part' does not mean unlimited coverage for the additional insured.
- •Require your subcontractors to carry adequate insurance, but understand that their policy won't protect you from your own negligence. You still need your own coverage.
Caused, in whole or in part requires proximate cause, not but-for cause.
Frequently Asked Question
Can my client use my insurance policy to cover injuries they caused themselves?
No. Under New York law, an additional insured endorsement only covers injuries proximately caused by your negligence, not injuries caused solely by the additional insured's own mistakes. Your client needs their own insurance to protect against their own negligence.
Related Cases
Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.
A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers
A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.
Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Harrison
A general contractor owes a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for fall protection when it retains actual control over safety measures, and the evidence sufficiently supported findings of negligence and gross negligence.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
The court reversed the district court's denial of preliminary injunction, finding ATA likely to succeed on FAAA preemption claims because many concession agreement provisions are not genuinely responsive to motor vehicle safety.