In a case involving a sheet metal worker who, while installing a ceiling duct cap, fell off an A-frame ladder after receiving an electrical shock from an overhead junction box, Josh H. Kardisch and Margaret Mazlin persuaded the Appellate Division, First Department, to reverse the lower court’s summary determination of plaintiff’s Labor Law §240(1) claim. The outcome was particularly impressive having come on the heels of the recent decision in Cutaia v. Board of Managers of the Varick St. Condominium, 172 AD3d 424 (1st Dep’t, 2019), which weighed heavily in favor of the same appellate court affirming the summary determination of plaintiff’s Labor Law §240(1) claim. This is a critical turni
As we all know, many states, including New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, have ordered “nonessential businesses” to shut down. As of this writing the order in New York extends until May 15; in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the orders are in effect until further notice. It can be expected that many claims will be filed by insureds seeking payment under their business interruption coverage. In our view, if the policy has the standard forms, coverage should be denied. Out of the many ISO forms in our library, we examined three commonly used business coverage forms: BP 00 03 01 10; CP 00 30 04 02; and a free-standing business income loss form, MP T1 02 02 05. They are functionally similar.
