Landlord Claims Lead Paint Injury Occurred During Insurance Policy Period

Facts: Landlord's insurer sued landlord for a declaration that it had no duty to defend landlord in tenant's lawsuit for lead paint injuries. The insurer claimed that the injury didn't occur during a period when the insurer provided coverage to landlord and that landlord didn't provide timely notice of any occurrence or an act requiring coverage or of the filing of tenant's lawsuit. The insurer claimed that there was no question of fact and asked the court to rule in its favor without a trial. Tenant showed during pretrial questioning that she and her child lived in the apartment during the policy coverage period and stated that she observed symptoms during that time. The child's doctor said that he believed that lead poisoning had occurred a year or more before the diagnosis. Court: Insurer loses. There were questions of fact as to whether the lead paint injury occurred during the insurance policy period. This required a trial. If the lead paint poisoning occurred during a period of policy coverage but wasn't diagnosed until later, landlord would be covered under the policy. Since tenant lived in an apartment in landlord's building during the policy period and claimed that her child was injured during that time, there was a question of fact. There were also questions of fact as to whether landlord reported the occurrence on time to the insurer.

Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Abesol Realty Corp.: NYLJ, 10/24/03, p. 24, col. 3 (E.D.N.Y.; Glasser, J)