A grinder fell off a forklift - and whether the damage was covered came down to two competing phrases in an insurance file.
In a decision dated July 15, 2026, a New York appeals court kept an insurance coverage dispute alive, ruling that a typewritten note on a certificate of insurance can override the stock printed terms of the policy behind it.
The story began in April 2019, when Machine Tool Repair & Sales, Inc. (Machine Tool) agreed to buy a grinder from Pride Machinery Sales, Inc. (Pride). Pride arranged to move the machine to Machine Tool's premises and bought coverage from Tokio Marine America Insurance Company (TMAIC) under a marine open cargo policy. Machine Tool was the named insured.
On April 18, 2019, the grinder arrived by truck. As an employee lifted it off with a forklift, the grinder fell, "allegedly sustaining irreparable damages," according to the decision. Machine Tool filed a claim. TMAIC denied it.
The case turned on two phrases. The policy's "warehouse to warehouse" clause said coverage continued "until delivered to final warehouse at the destination named in the Policy." TMAIC argued transit was over, so cover had lapsed before the grinder fell.
Machine Tool pointed to a typewritten line on its certificate, in a box for "additional insured notes or reference," reading "warehouse floor to floor." Coverage, it said, ran until the grinder reached its warehouse floor.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, mostly sided with Machine Tool. The typewritten "floor to floor" wording, it held, "prevails over pre-typed or stock provisions of the policy." The certificate stated that a holder's rights "shall not be prejudiced by any terms of the Open Policy which are in conflict with the terms of this Certificate," and the policy left out essential terms - who was insured, what was covered, and where the shipment started and ended. The two had to be read together as one contract.
The meaning of "floor to floor," the court found, was "not apparent." That ambiguity left triable issues of fact over whether the loss was covered, so the refusal to dismiss the claim stood.
On one issue, TMAIC prevailed: the court dismissed Pride's cross-claims against it - for alleged bad faith and Prompt Payment Act violations - because there was no contract between the two.
The coverage question now heads back to the trial court.
