You are here: / / Unambiguous Limitation of Liability to $10,000 Should Have Been Enforc...
,

Unambiguous Limitation of Liability to $10,000 Should Have Been Enforced

The Second Department determined summary judgment should have been granted to defendant insurer. A fire damaged school dormitories. The insurer paid for the repair but paid only $10,000 toward the more than $200,000 the school paid to relocate the students. The court determined that the policy was unambiguous and the $10,000 limit was properly applied to the relocation costs. The court explained the relevant analytical principles:

In construing policy provisions defining the scope of coverage pursuant to a policy of insurance, courts ” first look to the language of the policy'” …, reading it ” in light of common speech and the reasonable expectations of a businessperson'” …, and in a manner that ” leaves no provision without force and effect'” … . The unambiguous terms of an insurance contract must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and the interpretation of such terms is a question of law for the court … . Where an ” agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning, a court is not free to alter the contract to reflect its personal notions of fairness and equity'” … . However, if the terms of the policy are ambiguous, any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer … .

Here, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The $10,000 limitation was at the end of the pertinent “Additional Coverage” section 5 titled “Institutional Income and Extra Expense.” The limitation stated that the most the defendant “will pay under this Additional Coverage for Institutional Income and Extra Expense is $10,000, unless a higher limit is shown on the Declarations Page.” There was no such higher limit shown on that page. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, there was no ambiguity in this additional coverage. Viznitz v Church Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 07648, 2nd Dept 10-21-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LOW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TO THE GROUND WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCIDENT TWO YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM ACCRUED PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT SHOW DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE WRONG ADDRESS (SECOND DEPT).
INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS DISMISSED; POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SENTENCE SHOULD BE CONCURRENT WITH THE ATTEMPTED MURDER AND ASSAULT SENTENCES (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHO HAD THE GREEN LIGHT AND WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER SAW WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Custody and Visitation Can Only Be Determined by a Court—Custody and Visitation Arbitration-Award Invalid/However Child Support Can Be the Subject of Arbitration
AFTER WALKING OVER A TRAP DOOR, PLAINTIFF STEPPED BACK AND FELL THROUGH THE OPEN DOOR; DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT). ​
TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT A PRIOR SIMILAR STABBING OF THE SAME VICTIM IF THE DEFENDANT CHOSE TO TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, PLAINTIFF BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; NO FOUNDATION FOR THE SUBMITTED BUSINESS RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Proof of Janitorial Schedule Insufficient to Demonstrate Lack of Notice of Dangerous... Patient Held In a Mental Health Facility After the Court Order Authorizing Confinement...