THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THE POLICY COVERED A PREMISES AT WHICH THE INSURED DID NOT RESIDE (FIRST DEPT).
The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the language of the policy was not ambiguous and could not be interpreted to mean the policy covered a premises at which the insured did not reside:
Plaintiff demonstrated, via defendant’s admission in a statement to its investigator and the investigator’s inspection of the insured premises, that defendant did not reside at the premises and was therefore not covered by the policy … .
Contrary to defendant’s argument, the policy endorsement that amends the definition of “residence premises” — previously, “[t]he one-family dwelling … where you reside” — to include three- and four-family dwellings without repeating the phrase “where you reside” is not ambiguous. The endorsement also states that “[a]ll other provisions of this policy apply,” which gives effect to those portions of the policy that define “residence premises” as the place “where [the insured] reside[s]” … . MIC Gen. Ins. Corp. v Campbell, 2020 NY Slip Op 01465, First Dept 3-3-20