ITZHAK v. Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co., Defendant–Appellant. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered September 24, 2024, which denied defendant Atlantic Casualty Insurance Co.'s motion to dismiss the complaint as against it pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff alleges that her cooperative unit suffered damage during a renovation.  The body of the complaint does not identify who damaged the property, the relationship among plaintiff, defendant Atlantic, and defendant Briarwood Insurance Services, Inc., or whom Atlantic or Briarwood insured. Instead, plaintiff contends that she was named as additional insured on an accord certificate of liability insurance, which she attached to her complaint. The certificate identifies commercial general liability as the type of coverage.

Only those named as an insured or additional insured on an insurance policy are entitled to coverage (see Tribeca Broadway Assoc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 5 A.D.3d 198, 200, 774 N.Y.S.2d 11 [1st Dept. 2004]). As the party claiming coverage, plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the policy covers her (see Moleon v. Kreisler Borg Florman Gen. Constr. Co., 304 A.D.2d 337, 339, 758 N.Y.S.2d 621 [1st Dept. 2003]).

Supreme Court should have granted Atlantic's motion to dismiss the complaint because plaintiff failed to plead facts showing that she was covered under the policy.  The certificate of liability insurance is insufficient to prove that plaintiff was an additional insured because “[a] certificate of insurance is only evidence of a carrier's intent to provide coverage but is not a contract to insure the designated party nor is it conclusive proof, standing alone, that such a contract exists” (Tribeca, 5 A.D.3d at 200, 774 N.Y.S.2d 11). Furthermore, the certificate contains a disclaimer stating that it was “issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder” (Moleon, 304 A.D.2d at 339, 758 N.Y.S.2d 621).

Even if plaintiff were an additional insured, Atlantic would still be entitled to dismissal because the commercial general liability policy does not cover damage to property owned by the insured (see Gap, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 11 A.D.3d 108, 111, 782 N.Y.S.2d 242 [1st Dept. 2004]). Rather, a commercial general liability policy offers only third-party coverage, typically resulting from a judgment or settlement against the insured (see id.; see also Great N. Ins. Co. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co., 92 N.Y.2d 682, 688, 685 N.Y.S.2d 411, 708 N.E.2d 167 [1999]). In any event, plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of Insurance Law § 3420(b)(1) (see Lang v. Hanover Ins. Co., 3 N.Y.3d 350, 354, 787 N.Y.S.2d 211, 820 N.E.2d 855 [2004]).