(Massage therapist did not qualify as an insured in connection with the sexual assault of a customer as his conduct did not occur in the course and scope of his employment by the named insured)

(Exclusion in automobile policy purporting to exclude coverage of lawsuit brought by non-relative resident against named insured is invalid and against public policy)

(Insurance policy scheduling tractor and trailer is deemed primary to policy affording coverage for tractor and trailer but not scheduling such vehicles)

(Employment related practices exclusion applied to bar coverage of lawsuit filed by employees for sexual harassment, invasion of privacy and false imprisonment)

(Question of fact regarding whether insurance services company producer was acting as an agent on behalf of homeowner’s insurer or broker on behalf of the insured required reversal of jury verdict in favor of insureds for bad faith and punitive damage as improper jury instructions relating to status of the producer impacted insurer’s affirmative defense of rescission)

(Act of rescuing person from wrecked vehicle constitutes “use” under automobile insurance policies.)

(Assault and battery exclusion applying to “any insured” barred coverage of the Archdiocese for sexual abuse claims)

(Class action based on breach of confidentiality of Medical Information Act arising out of the theft of a lap top computer containing medical information failed to state a cause of action absent an allegation that an unauthorized person had viewed the informational records)

Mathis v. D.D. Dylan, LLC and Benjamin v. Trade Fair Supermarket, Inc.

In two recent decisions issued on the same day, the Appellate Division, Second Department granted summary judgment to defendants on the issue of whether a condition was open and obvious as a matter of law. Both decisions involved plaintiffs tripping over boxes. Notably, the Appellate Divisions of New York often hold that whether a condition is open and obvious is a question of fact for the jury.