top of page


NY Court of Appeals Redefines "Arising Out Of."

July 18, 2008

Share to:

The phrase "arising out of" has long been broadly construed by New York's courts. This has proven beneficial to many a would be additional insured. Unfortunately, the party may be about to stop. In the case of <em>Worth v. Admiral, et al.</em> (May 1, 2008), the Supreme Court was confronted with a situation in which a general contractor and would-be additional insured sought coverage from the subcontractor and named insured's insurer. The general contractor argued that even though it had conceded that the subcontractor's work was not negligent, the underlying personal injury action "arose" from the subcontractor's work and therefore it was entitled to coverage. The First Department agreed and ordered the subcontractor's carrier to provide coverage. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed and held that once the general contractor conceded that the subcontractor was not negligent, it could no longer argue that the underlying accident arose out of the "general nature" of the subcontractor's work.
<a href=""></a>

Headshot of Staff Member


bottom of page