PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Exclusions/Exceptions / Second Circuit Confirms: Rolling Trash Cans Are Not “Vehicles” as Common Sense Prevails Again

Second Circuit Confirms: Rolling Trash Cans Are Not “Vehicles” as Common Sense Prevails Again

August 23, 2019 by Brendan Gooley

Trash BinIn July 2018, we wrote about an interesting decision out of the Southern District of New York in which a court rejected a claim that an exclusion did not apply because a recycling bin on wheels was a “vehicle” under the applicable “all risks” insurance policy.

We described the district court’s decision that the glorified trash can was not a “vehicle” as a victory for common sense over a claim based on a hypertechnical definition.

The Second Circuit has now affirmed the district court’s commonsense decision.

To refresh your recollection, 1070 Park Avenue Corp., an apartment building on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, had a gas leak after a bin with wheels used to collect electronic waste hit a gas line when it was being moved. The leak was quickly fixed, but 1070 Park Avenue’s gas system had to pass an integrity test before the gas could be turned back on. 1070 Park Avenue had to spend more than $550,000 on upgrades so that its system could pass that test.

1070 Park Avenue sought coverage under an “all risks” policy issued to it by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. The policy, however, included an exclusion for “costs associated … with the enforcement of any law or ordinance that requires the testing of a gas system for integrity.” An exception to the exclusion created coverage if those costs were incurred as a result of “a direct loss causing physical damage to Covered Property from … Aircraft or Vehicles.”

In an effort to avoid footing the major repair bill, 1070 Park Avenue claimed that the recycling bin was a “vehicle” because it had wheels. (“Vehicle” was not defined by the policy.)

The district court rejected 1070 Park Avenue’s argument and granted summary judgment in favor of Fireman’s Fund. In short, and as we discussed in more detail in our prior post, the district court concluded that common sense established that the bin was not a “vehicle.”

The Second Circuit recently affirmed. In a short summary order, the court relied on New York law establishing that “[i]nsurance contracts must be interpreted according to common speech and consistent with the reasonable expectations of the average insured.” An “average insured,” the court explained, “would not reasonably expect that an exemption that refers to ‘aircraft or vehicles’ covers a recycling bin.” The bin’s primary purpose was to “store electronics pending trash collection.” The context of the policy precluded reading “vehicles” so broadly that the bin was included within the scope of that term. In essence, when you lump the word “vehicles” next to the word “aircraft,” you probably don’t intend to convey that everything with wheels is a “vehicle.” The exclusion therefore applied and 1070 Park Avenue was on the hook for the bill.

The moral of this story: Don’t try to use your dictionary to stretch a term beyond what a reasonable insured would believe the term means and what common sense dictates.

1070 Park Ave. Corp. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., No. 18-1887 (2d Cir. July 2, 2019).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

War of the Words: Ninth Circuit Reverses Judgment for the Insurer in Rare War Exclusion Case

Next Article »

The Insurer’s Howler, or How Travelers Proved Its Insured’s Case

About Brendan Gooley

Brendan N. Gooley is an associate at Carlton Fields in Hartford, Connecticut. Connect with Brendan on LinkedIn.

Related Articles

  1. Common Sense Prevails Over Dictionary Definitions: Rolling Trash Bins Are Not ‘Vehicles’ Judge Explains
  2. Ninth Circuit Confirms Privacy Exclusion Bars TCPA Claims
  3. Coverage Issues Relating to Drones Take on New Heights: A California District Court Finds Drone-Related Injury Falls Within Policy’s Aircraft Exclusion
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Third Circuit Holds Harassment Exclusion Bars Coverage for Sexual Assault Suit Under Pennsylvania Law
  • Tenth Circuit Interprets Excess Policy’s Definition of “Medical Incident” as Applying to the Injuries of One Single Person
  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing