December 2025 New York Insurance Coverage Update

Southern District Finds Insurer Has Standing To Seek Additional Insured Coverage For Entities It Is Not Defending

A Manhattan property owner retained On Star Management LLC to manage a renovation project at its property and On Star, in turn, retained Batco Associates, LLC, to perform work at the project. Batco then retained CMG Improvements, Inc., which retained EC Interiors Remodeling, Inc. A worker for EC fell from a ladder while working at the project and sustained injuries. The worker filed an action against the owner and On Star seeking damages for his injuries and they impleaded Batco, CMG, and EC through various third-party actions. Ohio Security Insurance Company, Batco’s insurer, filed a declaratory judgment action against Southwest Marine & General Insurance Company, CMG’s insurer, seeking a declaration that Southwest has a primary duty to defend and to indemnify the owner, On Star, and Batco as additional insureds under the Southwest policy and to reimburse Ohio for past defense costs. Ohio moved for summary judgment on its claims and Southwest moved for partial summary judgment. Southwest conceded additional insured coverage for Batco and the owner but argued that Ohio lacks standing to bring a claim on behalf of the owner and On Star because Ohio is not defending them in the underlying action. Southwest also disputed that On Star is an additional insured under its policy. The Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part both motions, finding that Southwest has a primary duty to defend the owner and Batco but not On Star and reserving judgment on the duty to indemnify. The court found that Ohio has standing to seek coverage on behalf of the owner and On Star because both tendered to Ohio and, as such, Ohio “faces imminent harm.” However, the court found that On Star is not an additional insured under the Southwest policy because On Star is not an “organization” that CMG, Southwest’s named insured, is “required to include as an additional insured” on the policy. As to indemnity, the court found that “at least one issue regarding liability remains contested at this time, i.e., whose negligence proximately caused [the worker’s] injuries” and reserved judgment until after that issue is resolved in the underlying action. [Ohio Sec. Ins. Co. v. Southwest Marine & General Ins. Co., No. 24-cv-8267 (JSR), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207103 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2025).]

Fourth Department Finds Mobile Home On Insured’s Property Not Covered Under Homeowners Policy

Daniel and Julie Barney own real property on which their primary residence and a mobile home they rent to others are situated. Preferred Mutual Insurance Company issued a homeowners policy to the Barneys that covered the “’residence’ on the ‘insured premises’” as well as “related private structures on the ‘insured premises’ which are not attached to ‘your’ residence.” The policy defines “insured premises” as the “[d]escribed location” listed on the policy declaration and states that “[i]f ‘you’ own and reside in the ‘residence’ shown on the ‘declarations’ as the described location, the ‘insured premises’ means … that ‘residence’; and … related private structures and grounds at that location.” The location listed on the policy declaration is the address of the Barneys’ primary residence. The Barneys’ mobile home was destroyed by fire, and they sought coverage from Preferred for the damage. Preferred denied coverage and the Barneys filed an action against Preferred alleging breach of contract. The Supreme Court, Oswego County, granted Preferred’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Barneys’ complaint on the basis that the mobile home is not covered under the Preferred homeowners policy. The Barneys appealed and the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed. The Fourth Department found that the “unambiguous language of the policy did not extend coverage to the mobile home” because it is not part of the “insured premises.” The court explained that there “is no dispute that the mobile home was not [the Barneys’] residence” and it “does not constitute a ‘related private structure’ at the insured location.” The court noted that the “policy declaration lists only the address of [the Barneys’] primary residence as the described location” and does not list the “separate address for the mobile home.” The court further noted that the mobile home is not mentioned anywhere in the policy. [Barney v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 05585, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5711 (4th Dep’t Oct. 10, 2025)].