Material Fact Not Proved Defeats Summary Judgment
Post number 5314
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/guT-87b6 and at https://lnkd.in/gEQrFndb and at https://zalma.com/blog, plus more than 5300 posts.
In Peleus Insurance Company, on its own behalf and on behalf of Bais Yaakov Dkal Adas Yereim and BT General Builders, Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Company, No. 24 Civ. 1398 (KPF), United States District Court, S.D. New York (March 23, 2026) Peleus Insurance Company (“Peleus”), on behalf of itself and insureds Bais Yaakov Dkal Adas Yereim (“Bais”) and BT General Builders, Inc. (“BT”), initiated an action against United Specialty Insurance Company (“USIC”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Peleus sought declaratory judgment regarding USIC’s obligations to defend and indemnify its insureds in connection with an underlying personal injury lawsuit pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. Both parties cross-moved for summary judgment concerning USIC’s duty to defend.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The underlying action arose from an accident at a construction site located at 184-198 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, where Jonathan Caceres, employed by Charles Contractors Corp., sustained injuries while carrying a stone slab up a staircase. Caceres sued BT and Bais in state court, alleging negligence and violations of New York Labor Law Sections 200, 240, and 241(6). At the time of the accident, Charles Contractors was engaged in stonework at the site. Caceres’s injuries occurred when he slipped on water, lost control of the slab, and the slab fell on his left foot.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The motions for summary judgment required the court to determine whether USIC owed a duty to defend and indemnify BT and Bais as “additional insureds” under USIC-issued policies. The duty to defend is typically broader than the duty to indemnify and hinges on the terms of the insurance policy and the allegations in the underlying complaint.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The court’s analysis centered on the timing and validity of the agreement purportedly extending additional insured coverage to BT and Bais under USIC’s policies. Both parties argued for summary judgment on USIC’s duty to defend, but the court found a material dispute regarding whether the relevant agreement was executed before the accident occurred. This factual uncertainty precluded a definitive ruling on coverage and defense obligations. The court concluded that, due to unresolved factual questions concerning the execution date of the agreement, neither party was entitled to summary judgment.
CONCLUSION
The court denied both Peleus’s and USIC’s motions for summary judgment. The outcome preserves the need for further proceedings to resolve the disputed facts, particularly regarding the timing of the agreement that could trigger USIC’s duty to defend and indemnify.
Insurance policies are, in essence, creatures of contract, and, accordingly, subject to principles of contract interpretation. The initial interpretation of a contract is a matter of law for the court to decide.
Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Exist Concerning the Execution Date of the Sandstone Agreement
The parties do not seriously dispute that, if the Court finds that BT and Bais qualify as additional insureds under the USIC Policy, USIC would have a duty to defend them in the Underlying Action. Instead, the parties dispute the antecedent question of whether BT and Bais qualify as additional insureds under the USIC Policy.
In point of fact, these recitals do not mean that the Sandstone Agreement was executed on April 20, 2022, prior to Mr. Caceres’s alleged Accident. The evidence concerning the execution date of the Sandstone Agreement raises genuine disputes of material fact. In short, Peleus has not proved, nor has USIC disproved, that BT and Bais qualify as additional insureds under the USIC Policy for two separate reasons, one temporal and one intent-based. In the absence of a more developed factual record, resolution of that issue will have to wait until trial.
The decision underscores the importance of clear documentation and timing in additional insured coverage disputes and serves as a reminder that summary judgment is inappropriate when material facts remain contested.
ZALMA OPINION
Additional insured endorsements are important to every insured doing business where the contract requires them to make others insureds on the named insured’s policy. They are prevalent in construction contracts where the general contractor and owner try to shift the risk of loss to the subcontractors policies. In this case, the contract promising to make another an additional insured was not signed until after the accident and summary judgment was not proper.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Attempt to Withdraw Plea After Sentencing Fails
Post number 5346
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/admit-crime-ready-do-time-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-hgyce, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Stealing from Insurers and Employer Gets Defendant Five Years in Prison
In State of Wisconsin v. Jacquelyn R. Harris, No. 2025AP489-CR, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (April 22, 2026) Harris pled no contest and was found guilty. She was sentenced to five years of initial confinement and three years of extended supervision, with restitution ordered in the amounts of $31,086 to Kaliber and $25,000 to Erie Insurance Company.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In late 2022, Jacquelyn R. Harris was charged with theft in a business setting under WIS. STAT. § 943.20(1)(b) (2023-24). Harris, while employed as the office manager for Kaliber Collision Repair in Port ...
Plaintiff May Try Again to get a Judgment
Posted on May 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Just Because a Defendant Defaults Evidence is Needed to get a Judgment
Even on a Default Motion the Plaintiff Must Do More Than Rely on Conclusory Allegations.
Post number 5356
The Commissioners Of The State Insurance Fund v. Capcon Construction Industries Corp., Capcon Construction Supply Corp., Jab Masonry Corp., Agra Masonry Inc., Agra Industries Usa Corp, A & A Masonry Corp., Alexander Shvartsberg, Darren Caputo, Maryann Furman, Index No. 452680/2024, MOTION SEQ. No. 003, 2026 NY Slip Op 31767(U), Supreme Court, New York County (April 20, 2026)
FACTS
The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund (SIF) had already obtained two judgments for unpaid workers’ compensation insurance premiums: one against A\&A Masonry Corp. and another, much larger one, against Agra Masonry Inc. SIF then brought this action against several related corporations and individuals, alleging that they all operated as a single de facto enterprise and that assets had ...
Defaulting Fraud Perpetrator Lets Insurer Defeat Fraud
Post number 5355
Posted on May 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. John Joseph Egan, et al., No. 25-cv-06167-JD, United States District Court, N.D. California (May 12, 2026) Transamerica Life Insurance Company issued John Egan a life insurance policy with a long-term care rider that covered in-home skilled nursing or other professional care if he qualified as chronically ill.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2023, Egan submitted a claim alleging severe pain, major loss of daily functioning, and limited mobility following an auto accident. Transamerica approved coverage and paid benefits based on those representations and repeated proofs of loss describing in-home care services. After later surveillance in 2024 and 2025 showed Egan working, driving, shopping, and otherwise functioning without visible impairment — and showed no evidence of in-home care — Transamerica concluded that the claim was fraudulent and filed suit.
Transamerica surveilled ...
Defaulting Fraud Perpetrator Lets Insurer Defeat Fraud
Post number 5355
Posted on May 21, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Transamerica Life Insurance Company v. John Joseph Egan, et al., No. 25-cv-06167-JD, United States District Court, N.D. California (May 12, 2026) Transamerica Life Insurance Company issued John Egan a life insurance policy with a long-term care rider that covered in-home skilled nursing or other professional care if he qualified as chronically ill.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In 2023, Egan submitted a claim alleging severe pain, major loss of daily functioning, and limited mobility following an auto accident. Transamerica approved coverage and paid benefits based on those representations and repeated proofs of loss describing in-home care services. After later surveillance in 2024 and 2025 showed Egan working, driving, shopping, and otherwise functioning without visible impairment — and showed no evidence of in-home care — Transamerica concluded that the claim was fraudulent and filed suit.
Transamerica surveilled ...
