New York courts recognize the well-settled principle that the
duty to defend in an insurance policy is broader than the duty to
indemnify. They also construe policy exclusions narrowly and place
the burden on the insurer to prove that an exclusion applies.
Nevertheless, that does not mean the courts will not enforce a
clearly-drafted exclusion when the facts plainly fall within the
scope of the exclusion. Just recently, the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment to an
insurer, holding that the insurer had no duty to defend, based on
the terms of an exclusion in the policy
‘Clear Blue Specialty Insurance'
In Clear Blue Specialty Insurance v. TFS NY, d/b/a Sugar
Daddy's et al., 22-CV-1915, 2023 WL 5806110 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 6,
2023), the district court was presented with an insurance dispute
arising out of an alleged assault at the defendant
policyholder's nightclub. The underlying claimant filed suit in
state court against
