You are here: / / USING THE COURT’S OWN DEFINITION OF SURFACE WATER, THE COURT DETERMINED...

USING THE COURT’S OWN DEFINITION OF SURFACE WATER, THE COURT DETERMINED THE SURFACE WATER DAMAGE EXCLUSION IN THE PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT APPLY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s cross motion for summary judgment should not have been granted and the insured’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiffs’ home was damaged by water. The policy excluded damage from surface water and coverage was denied on that ground. Without describing the facts, the Fourth Department noted that the term “surface water” was not defined in the policy and, using the court’s own definition, held that the water which caused the damage was not surface water:

“An insurance agreement is subject to principles of contract interpretation” … , and “[a]ny . . . exclusions or exceptions from policy coverage must be specific and clear in order to be enforced. They are not to be extended by interpretation or implication, but are to be accorded a strict and narrow construction” … . Inasmuch as the term “surface water” is not defined in the policy, “we afford that term its plain and ordinary meaning’ ” … . We have previously defined surface water as ” the accumulation of natural precipitation on the land and its passage thereafter over the land until it either evaporates, is absorbed by the land or reaches stream channels’ ” … .We thus conclude that, under the clear and unambiguous terms of the policy, the water that entered the plaintiffs’ residence was not surface water, and defendant therefore erroneously denied coverage under that policy exclusion. Smith v Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 NY Slip Op 02055, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

INSURANCE LAW (USING THE COURT’S OWN DEFINITION OF SURFACE WATER, THE COURT DETERMINED THE SURFACE WATER DAMAGE EXCLUSION IN THE PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT APPLY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/SURFACE WATER (INSURANCE LAW, USING THE COURT’S OWN DEFINITION OF SURFACE WATER, THE COURT DETERMINED THE SURFACE WATER DAMAGE EXCLUSION IN THE PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT APPLY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))/WATER (SURFACE WATER, INSURANCE LAW, USING THE COURT’S OWN DEFINITION OF SURFACE WATER, THE COURT DETERMINED THE SURFACE WATER DAMAGE EXCLUSION IN THE PROPERTY INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT APPLY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
A STACK OF DRYWALL LEANING AGAINST A WALL AND PARTIALLY BLOCKING A DOORWAY FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE AS PLAINTIFF ATTEMPTED TO MOVE IT; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
NONPARTY, WHICH WISHED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR USE AS A LAND FILL, PROPERLY ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN A LAWSUIT BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS SEEKING TO DECLARE INVALID A LOCAL LAW WHICH PROHIBITED EXPANSION OF THE LAND FILL (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED GRANDMOTHER’S PETITION FOR VISITATION, THE PARENTS WERE FIT AND THEIR TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN WEIGHT, INSTEAD FAMILY COURT IGNORED THE PARENTS’ TESTIMONY (FOURTH DEPT).
Explicit Verbal Waiver of Miranda Rights Not Required
SMI, A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY, RAISED A SEQRA CHALLENGE TO A LOCAL LAW ALLOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLID WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY IN THE TOWN OF SENECA FALLS; ALTHOUGH SMI ALLEGED THE NEW FACILITY WOULD CAUSE IT ECONOMIC LOSS, SMI DID NOT ALLEGE IT WOULD SUFFER ENVIRONMENTAL INJURY; THEREFORE SMI DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE LOCAL LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
17-YEAR-OLD’S ARE STATUTORILY EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS OF VICTIMS UNDER PENAL LAW 263.11, TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY; RISK-LEVEL REDUCED FROM TWO TO ONE (FOURTH DEPT).
Court Should Have Granted a Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Conviction on Ineffective-Assistance Grounds
UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH 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

ALTHOUGH FATHER COULD NOT SEEK MODIFICATION OF A NEW JERSEY SUPPORT ORDER UNDER... VILLAGE EMPLOYEE’S TERMINATION BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S...