Some would argue that crisis begets opportunity. It appears that the BP oil spill may be the opportunity needed by US legislators to fundamentally change US maritime law. According to press accounts, Congress is currently considering revisions to the Death on the High Seas Act, the Limitation of Liability Act and the Jones Act. Congress is also considering revisiting the appropriateness of punitive damages awards in maritime cases. Obviously, if any of these statutes are changed, the “seascape” of maritime law in the US will be altered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/business/06seas.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=maritime&st=cse

If you would like more information about this post, please contact Bob Cosgrove at .

Kristopher Kohl took a cab in New York City one winter afternoon. When he arrived at his destination, Kohl opened the rear passenger door and accidentally caused an oncoming bicyclist to collide with the cab door. The bicyclist sued Kohl and Kohl, in turn, brought an action against the cab driver’s insurer. Kohl argued that the insurer was required to defend and indemnify him in the underlying personal injury action.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Second Department’s decision, finding that the taxi cab’s insurance policy only extended to those parties “operating” the vehicle. The Court found that as a passenger riding in the car, Kohl was not operating the vehicle when he opened the cab door.

Thanks to Georgia Stagias for her contributions to this post.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/CTAPPS/decisions/2010/jul10/134mem10.pdf

In Hunter Roberts Construction Group v. Arch Insurance Co., a panel of the New York Appellate Division reversed a decision of the trial court and granted summary judgment in favor a contractor that was named as an additional insured under a subcontractor’s insurance policy. The policy provided coverage to the additional insured for any liability arising out of the named insured’s work.

An employee of the named insured, an electrical subcontractor, tripped and fell in a hole in the floor while walking to the field office to get some equipment. The court held that, because the plaintiff was an employee of the named insured and was injured during the course of his work, the accident arose out of the named insured’s work and coverage was owed to the additional insured. This is true even if the named insured was not at fault or negligent in any way.

The court then noted that a four-month delay in disclaiming coverage was unreasonable as a matter of law even if the carrier was “investigating” the circumstances of the loss. The court noted that the burden was on the carrier to establish that the investigation was necessary.

If you wish additional information about this post, please contact David Tavella at

http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/flwhitview.htp?lwhitid=9675166