Skip to main content

Lubinski v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

S.D.N.Y.July 9, 2024No. 1:23-cv-02825
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: Fair Standards
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court granted defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company's motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff's Hurricane Delta claims for property damage because the policy did not provide coverage for the fence and shed, and the building damage was below the wind deductible.

What This Ruling Means

**The Dispute** This case involved a property insurance claim, not a typical employment law matter. Lubinski filed a lawsuit against Scottsdale Insurance Company over Hurricane Delta damage to property including a fence, shed, and building. The plaintiff claimed the insurance company should have covered these damages under their policy. **The Court's Decision** The court ruled in favor of Scottsdale Insurance Company. The judge granted the insurance company's request to dismiss the Hurricane Delta claims through partial summary judgment. The court found that the insurance policy specifically did not cover the fence and shed that were damaged. Additionally, any building damage that occurred fell below the policy's wind damage deductible, meaning the policyholder was responsible for those costs. **What This Means for Workers** While this case primarily involves insurance coverage rather than employment rights, it serves as a reminder for workers to carefully review all insurance policies, including those provided through employers. Understanding what is and isn't covered—including deductibles and exclusions—can help workers avoid unexpected out-of-pocket expenses when filing claims. Always read policy terms thoroughly and ask questions about coverage limits before assuming protection exists.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.