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
Question of Fact About Whether Private Entity Managing Public Funds Can Recoup Payments Which Were Above Minimum Fees Required by the Medicare Fee Schedule
DEFENDANT IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE WAS THE VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENTENCED UNDER THE ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING SCHEME IN THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
NO PRETRIAL NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTION REVERSED.
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER WAS THE ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF’S ONLY REMEDY FOR INJURY FROM A FALL WAS UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUED THE TOWN ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT; TOWN LAW 65 (3) REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM WITHIN SIX MONTHS (WHICH PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DO) AND MAKES NO PROVISION FOR FILING A LATE NOTICE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
OHIO GUN DEALER WHO SOLD GUN USED TO SHOOT PLAINTIFF IN NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE THE REQUISITE MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK, EXERCISING JURISDICTION OVER THE OHIO GUN DEALER, THEREFORE, WOULD VIOLATE DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).
CITY EMPLOYEE’S CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO MEDICAL BENEFITS VESTED BEFORE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS TERMINATED (FOURTH DEPT).
Case Remitted for Determination Whether Defendant Should Be Adjudicated a Youthful Offender/Record Insufficient to Determine Whether Court Erred In Not Disclosing to the Defendant the Written Submissions of the Victims Which Were Reviewed by the Court–Case Remitted to Make an Adequate Record for Review

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...