LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

ALEXANDRA MARKEVICS v LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: ALEXANDRA MARKEVICS, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I01_0117, Coverage, Policy, Disclaimer, Markevics, Insurance, Personal Liability Coverage, Appellate Division, Kerry, Exclusion, Carrier, Business Pursuits, Alleges, Insurance Law, Requiring, Coverage Terms, Respondent, Memorandum, Summary Judgment, Parents, Perez, Party, Bar, Insured Premises, Insured Individuals, Commencement, Failure, Written Notice , ContentID: 120248662

Case Documents
1 2001-11-15 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120572
3 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 3 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
POLICY
DISCLAIMER
MARKEVICS
INSURANCE
PERSONAL LIABILITY COVERAGE
APPELLATE DIVISION
KERRY
EXCLUSION
DEFENDANT
CARRIER
BUSINESS PURSUITS
ALLEGES
INSURANCE LAW
REQUIRING
COVERAGE TERMS
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
PLAINTIFF
PARENTS
PEREZ
PARTY
BAR
ATTORNEY
INSURED PREMISES
INSURED INDIVIDUALS
COMMENCEMENT
FAILURE
WRITTEN NOTICE


   2 No. 130
   Alexandra Markevics,
   Respondent,
   v.
   Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,
   Appellant, et al.,
   Defendant.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2001 NY Int. 117

   November 15, 2001

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Melissa P. Corrado, for appellant.
   Lawrence T. D'Aloise, Jr., for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   MEMORANDUM:

   The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs.

   In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiff Alexandra Markevics
   claims that defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. must defend and
   indemnify Kerry O'Brien pursuant to a homeowner's policy issued to
   O'Brien's parents. The carrier disclaimed coverage based on a
   "business pursuits" exclusion contained in the policy. In the
   underlying personal injury action, Markevics alleges O'Brien served
   liquor to a visibly intoxicated Sandro Perez during his birthday party
   at O'Bie's Bar in Yonkers. After leaving the bar, Perez drove his
   automobile into a utility pole, injuring Markevics, who was a
   passenger in the car.

   O'Bie's Bar was a family enterprise, owned by a closely held
   corporation and operated by Kerry's parents. Twenty-one year old Kerry
   worked there as a bartender and lived at her parents' home. Liberty
   Mutual wrote a "deluxe" homeowner's policy for the O'Briens. In
   addition to coverage for the "insured premises," the policy provides
   personal coverage for liability claims against an insured individual.
   Under the policy, the carrier agrees to indemnify and defend against
   any claim for damages caused by an "occurrence" to which coverage
   applies. Among the exclusions to personal liability coverage are
   injuries arising out of the business pursuits of the insured. The
SNIPPETS:
  • This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • Lawrence T. D'Aloise, Jr., for respondent.
  • plaintiff Alexandra Markevics claims that defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. must defend
  • In the underlying personal injury action, Markevics alleges O'Brien served liquor to a
  • In addition to coverage for the "insured premises," the policy provides personal coverage for
  • the carrier agrees to indemnify and defend against any claim for damages caused by an
  • Among the exclusions to personal liability coverage are injuries arising out of the business
  • After commencement of the personal injury action, Kerry's attorney tendered her defense to
  • The carrier disclaimed coverage on November 7, 1997, relying on the policy's business
  • In a motion for summary judgment, defendant-carrier argued that the policy expressly excluded
  • Plaintiff contended that a disclaimer was necessary and that the failure to disclaim by
  • The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that a disclaimer was required and that the
  • Two Justices dissented on the ground that O'Brien's alleged violation of General Obligation
  • Liberty Mutual reiterates that there is no coverage because the claim did not arise on the
  • personal liability coverage applies to insured individuals without geographical limitation.
  • A disclaimer is unnecessary when a claim does not fall within the coverage terms of an
  •    |