Case Name: Lifelock, Inc., Appellant, v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-01-17
Citations: 146 A.D.3d 565
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lifelock, Inc., Appellant, v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, Respondent.
Judges: Concur — Acosta, J.R, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 146
Pages: 565–565

Head Matter:
Lifelock, Inc., Appellant, v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, Respondent.
[45 NYS3d 78]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered November 19, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant's motion to dismiss counts one and two of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The insurance policy issued to plaintiff by defendant excludes from coverage claims "[a]rising out of any related or continuing acts, . . . where the first such act . . . was committed . . . prior to the Retroactive Date" (exclusion L). The policy shows January 8, 2008 as the retroactive date. In the underlying action, for which plaintiff seeks defense and indemnification from defendant, six of the eight causes of action are expressly based on allegations of acts performed before 2008, and the remaining two specifically incorporate those allegations. Thus, the underlying complaint in its entirety falls within exclusion L (see Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v Cook, 7 NY3d 131, 137 [2006]; see also Albert J. Schiff Assoc. v Flack, 73 AD2d 329, 332-333 [1st Dept 1980], affd 51 NY2d 692 [1980]). It also falls in its entirety within exclusion I, which excludes coverage for claims arising out of or resulting from unfair trade practices.
It is not necessary to reach defendant's contention that the complaint is untimely.
Concur — Acosta, J.R, Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.