In American Building v. Petrocelli Group, 19 NY3d 730 (2012) the plaintiff asked the broker to change the current policy that it had, to provide additional coverage for employees for accidental injury. The policy that the broker actually procured was the same one as the plaintiff's previous policy and specifically stated that "this insurance does not apply to actual or alleged ... personal injury to a ... employee," Id, at 734. The evidence submitted in that case indicated that no one but employees ever entered the plaintiff's premises, Id, at 736. The Court stated that the evidence arguably supported the plaintiff's contentions since the coverage obtained by the defendant, which excluded coverage for injuries to employees hardly made sense Id, at 736. The holding of American Building v. Petrocelli Group was that there were issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff requested specific coverage for its employees and whether the defendant failed to procure it Id, at 737. Immediately after the holding, the Court stated, "we further conclude that plaintiff's failure to read and understand the policy should not be an absolute bar to recovery under the circumstances of this case." Id, at 737.