The issue of whether general liability coverage extends to bodily injury that occurs outside of the insured’s premises has long been a point of contention for insurers and insureds alike. In Catherine Normile v. DB Insurance Co., Ltd.1 the Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed fundamental questions about insurers’ obligations under these circumstances.
In Normile, a Brooklyn business called Kittery Restaurant (the insured) was sued by a plaintiff who was struck while crossing the street by the insured’s employee who was returning from a food delivery on his bicycle. Notably, the incident occurred approximately one block from the insured premises. The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the insured in the amount of $500,000 and sued the insured’s liability insurer for a declaration that the insured was obligated to cover the claim and unsatisfied portion of the judgment.
Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The insurer denied any coverage obligation based on, among other things, the fact that the incident did not occur at the insured premises. The insurance policy contained an endorsement that provided, in pertinent part, that coverage was limited to claims of “bodily injury, property damage, personal and advertising injury, and medical expenses arising out of . . . [t]he ownership, maintenance or use of the premises . . . and operations necessary or incidental to those premises.” The policy identified the covered premises as the location of the insured’s restaurant.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and denied the insurer’s motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed in favor of the insurer. The court examined whether the policy language limiting coverage to “operations necessary or incidental to the premises” obligated the insurer to cover bodily injury occurring off premises during business-related activities. The court held that there was no coverage obligation because the incident failed to arise from “operations necessary or incidental to the premises,” as defined in the policy.
Importantly, the court interpreted the terms “necessary” and “incidental” to require direct spatial and circumstantial connections to the insured premises. The court distinguished between operations incidental to the business versus operations incidental to the specific premises because, although the insured’s employee involved in the incident was engaged in a business-related activity, the activity had no connection to the premises itself.
The Normile decision includes a productive discussion of policy language that has been litigated frequently. The decision also demonstrates how coverage disputes often hinge on seemingly minor language and circumstantial distinctions. Although insureds may be under the impression that general liability insurance “travels” with a businessowner, in cases where bodily injury occurs away from the insured premises, parties must carefully examine the policy language at issue to assess whether coverage may be triggered.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this alert, please contact Kaitlyn McClaine, associate, at kmcclaine@barclaydamon.com; Tony Piazza or Mark Whitford, Insurance Coverage & Regulation Practice Area co-chairs, at apiazza@barclaydamon.com and mwhitford@barclaydamon.com; or another member of the firm’s Insurance Coverage & Regulation Practice Area.
1___AD3d___, 2026 NY Slip Op 00788 (February 11, 2026).