{"id":899815,"date":"2022-04-12T16:07:01","date_gmt":"2022-04-12T22:07:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?p=899815"},"modified":"2022-04-12T16:36:34","modified_gmt":"2022-04-12T22:36:34","slug":"coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace \u201cPrank\u201d With Nail Gun"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Craig Rokuson | Traub Lieberman<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, \u00b6 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case seeking recovery for injuries sustained when the insured, Burby allegedly discharged a nail gun in the bathroom of a work facility at which both Burby and the underlying plaintiff worked. Burby pled guilty to assault in the third degree for recklessly causing physical injury. MetLife, Burby\u2019s carrier, disclaimed coverage based on lack of an occurrence, the business activities exclusion and the intentional loss exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured or injuries that are the result of the insured\u2019s intentional and criminal acts or omissions. Justice Platkin initially reviewed the intentional loss exclusion and lack of an occurrence and found that, from a duty to defend perspective, neither provided a dispositive coverage defense. However, the court found that the broadly worded business activities exclusion, which was not the subject of MetLife\u2019s motion and instead was the subject of a cross motion by Burby, applied to bar coverage. In doing so, the court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the issue, despite MetLife not moving for relief under the exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With respect to the expected or intended prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court found that, even if Burby did intend to pull the trigger of the nail gun, it was not pled in the underlying complaint that the harm that resulted to the plaintiff was expected or intended. As such, the court concluded that MetLife did not prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it could be found that Burby did not reasonably expect or intend to cause injury to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With respect to the intentional and criminal acts prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court held that the exclusion is satisfied where the victim\u2019s injuries were caused by an intentional act that constitutes a crime. Here, the court noted that Burby clearly engaged in a crime, but that the record did not establish that as a matter of law that the injuries were caused by an intentional act. In this regard, the court noted that, in the underlying complaint, plaintiff alleged that Burby was known to often to engage in horseplay and\/or pranks with other employees, such that a reasonable possibility of accidental discharge existed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With respect to whether the incident was an \u201coccurrence,\u201d defined to be an accident, the court also found that MetLife fell short. Although assault is not an occurrence, Justice Platkin noted that the underlying complaint alleged, in the alternative, causes of action for ordinary negligence, gross negligence and recklessness as the result of a \u201cprank\u201d gone wrong. Further, as Burby pled guilty of reckless\u2014not intentional\u2014assault, the plea was not determinative of whether Burby\u2019s actions were an \u201coccurrence.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court then turned to Burby\u2019s cross motion seeking a declaration of coverage. After dismissing two non-dispositive exclusions, the court examined the business activities exclusion, noting that the exclusion broadly bars coverage for injuries arising out of or connected with Burby\u2019s business activities. \u201cArising out of,\u201d under New York law, is interpreted to mean that coverage does not exist when the injury would not have occurred \u201cbut for\u201d the excluded activity. Here, Burby injured a fellow employee at their workplace, involving Burby\u2019s misuse of a work tool. As the court noted, had Burby not been present at his workplace, he would not have access to the plaintiff and a nail gun. As such, the court held that Burby\u2019s business activities provided both the occasion for the incident and the instrumentality of the injury. The court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the duty to defend to MetLife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case illustrates both the broad duty to defend under New York law, in that the court did not preclude coverage based on lack of an occurrence or on the intentional loss exclusion. It also illustrates the broad interpretation of \u201carising out of\u201d when used in an exclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When one of your cases is in need of a construction expert, estimates, insurance appraisal or umpire services in defect or insurance disputes – please call Advise & Consult, Inc. at 888.684.8305, or email experts@adviseandconsult.net<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Craig Rokuson | Traub Lieberman In the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, \u00b6 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case… Continue reading Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace \u201cPrank\u201d With Nail Gun<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9914,8782],"tags":[9895,23,361],"class_list":["post-899815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-insurance-coverage","category-personal-injury","tag-advise-consult","tag-insurance-coverage","tag-personal-injury","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nCourt Finds No Coverage for Workplace \u201cPrank\u201d With Nail Gun - Advise & Consult, Inc.<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This case illustrates both the broad duty to defend did not preclude coverage based on lack of an occurrence or intentional loss exclusion\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace \u201cPrank\u201d With Nail Gun - Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This case illustrates both the broad duty to defend did not preclude coverage based on lack of an occurrence or intentional loss exclusion\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-04-12T22:07:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-04-12T22:36:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@adviseconsult\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\"},\"headline\":\"Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace \u201cPrank\u201d With Nail Gun\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-12T22:07:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-04-12T22:36:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/\"},\"wordCount\":757,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Advise & Consult\",\"insurance coverage\",\"Personal Injury\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Insurance Coverage\",\"Personal Injury\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/\",\"name\":\"Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace \u201cPrank\u201d With Nail Gun - Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-12T22:07:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-04-12T22:36:34+00:00\",\"description\":\"This case illustrates both the broad duty to defend did not preclude coverage based on lack of an occurrence or intentional loss exclusion\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult, Inc.\",\"description\":\"Construction Expert Witnesses\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advise & Consult\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png\",\"width\":162,\"height\":75,\"caption\":\"Advise & Consult\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace \u201cPrank\u201d With Nail Gun - Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"This case illustrates both the broad duty to defend did not preclude coverage based on lack of an occurrence or intentional loss exclusion","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace \u201cPrank\u201d With Nail Gun - Advise & Consult, Inc.","og_description":"This case illustrates both the broad duty to defend did not preclude coverage based on lack of an occurrence or intentional loss exclusion","og_url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/","og_site_name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","article_published_time":"2022-04-12T22:07:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-04-12T22:36:34+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@adviseconsult","twitter_site":"@adviseconsult","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7"},"headline":"Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace \u201cPrank\u201d With Nail Gun","datePublished":"2022-04-12T22:07:01+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-12T22:36:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/"},"wordCount":757,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Advise & Consult","insurance coverage","Personal Injury"],"articleSection":["Insurance Coverage","Personal Injury"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/","name":"Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace \u201cPrank\u201d With Nail Gun - Advise & Consult, Inc.","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-04-12T22:07:01+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-12T22:36:34+00:00","description":"This case illustrates both the broad duty to defend did not preclude coverage based on lack of an occurrence or intentional loss exclusion","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/coverage-workplace-prank-nail-gun\/"]}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","name":"Advise & Consult, Inc.","description":"Construction Expert Witnesses","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#organization","name":"Advise & Consult","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/AC-Red-Logo.png","width":162,"height":75,"caption":"Advise & Consult"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Advise-Consult-Inc-126949043996790\/","https:\/\/x.com\/adviseconsult","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company-beta\/204526\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/MrConstructionExpert"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/0a11abe008083d5fb19c2b0feefe7bd7","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b01e71b7acadd7657af782b7ad1a30cc?s=96&d=mm&r=pg","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.expertwitnessinconstruction.com"]}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2ztG6-3M59","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/899815","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=899815"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/899815\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":899822,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/899815\/revisions\/899822"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=899815"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=899815"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.myconstructionexpert.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=899815"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}