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.
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR COMPLAINTS TO DMV
Complaints Filed By The Defendants With The Department Of Motor Vehicles Were Entitled To Absolute Immunity
Post number 5312
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rhDh-Z and at https://lnkd.in/gkpfVfjb and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Modzelewski’s Towing & Storage, Inc., et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company et al., No. AC 47933, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (March 24, 2026) Modzelewski’s Towing & Storage, Inc., Chris’ Auto Clinic, LLC, MyHoopty.com, LLC, and Farmington Auto Park, LLC, initiated an action seeking damages for tortious interference with business expectancies and other relief. The dispute arose after complaints were filed against them by Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) and individual defendants John P. Vaz and Patrick Capri with the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged that these complaints interfered with their business relationships.
LEGAL ISSUES
The central legal issue ...
DE FACTO PARTNERSHIP AFFIRMED
Implied In Fact Contract Can Only Exist However Where There Is No Express One
Post number 5311
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gPHyfRec, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gRjMfgBj and at https://lnkd.in/gicdXhap, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Ronald Daigneault v. Danielle Kolashuk et al., No. AC 47259, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (March 24, 2026) Daigneault, owned and operated an auto repair business for approximately twenty-eight years. During this period, he and his daughter, the defendant D (Danielle Kolashuk), jointly operated the business. D’s husband owned Auto Magic, LLC (“A Co.”), which periodically stored towed vehicles on the business property. Disputes arose regarding the nature of the business relationship between the plaintiff and D, the use of business accounts, and payment for vehicle storage.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Ronald The plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for, among other things, statutory theft and ...
Arrest for Insurance Fraud is not a Violation of Constitutional Rights
Court Give Plaintiffs Acting as their Own Lawyer a Second Chance
Post number 5310
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gJ5yrK8m, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gSPcXJ6A and at https://lnkd.in/gfdvbaMT, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In Arin Sutton et al v. Lori Pozuelos et al., No. 5:25-cv-03544-MRA-MAR, United States District Court, C.D. California (March 20, 2026) Plaintiffs Darin Sutton and Youtha Baker, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple defendants, including Lori Pozuelos, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs allege violations of their constitutional rights, though the complaint’s factual allegations are stated in general terms and lack specific detail as to the actions of each defendant.
Plaintiffs are independent contractors who completed work in Missouri. ...
Posted on March 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Insurance Fraud, a Way to Reduce Violent Crime
Post number 5313
A Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story helps to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
She Taught Her Customers The Swoop And Squat:
Recently the California Insurance Department’s Fraud Division arrested a young woman in Los Angeles County for operating an insurance fraud school. She advertised her classes in the “Penny Saver” an advertising sheet distributed free to the public and a print version of Facebook, X Craig’s list. She had operated for several years teaching methods of committing automobile insurance fraud. Only after a police officer enrolled in one of her classes was she arrested.
Her defense ...
Posted on March 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Insurance Fraud, a Way to Reduce Violent Crime
Post number 5313
A Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud from an Expert who explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story helps to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
She Taught Her Customers The Swoop And Squat:
Recently the California Insurance Department’s Fraud Division arrested a young woman in Los Angeles County for operating an insurance fraud school. She advertised her classes in the “Penny Saver” an advertising sheet distributed free to the public and a print version of Facebook, X Craig’s list. She had operated for several years teaching methods of committing automobile insurance fraud. Only after a police officer enrolled in one of her classes was she arrested.
Her defense ...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
