You are here: / / THE EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS IN THIS FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WERE AMBIGUOUS...
,

THE EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS IN THIS FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WERE AMBIGUOUS AND MUST THEREFORE BE CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR THE FIRE DAMAGE DESPITE THE UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the exclusionary provisions of the fire insurance policy were ambiguous and therefore must be construed in favor of the insured. At the time of the fire unauthorized occupants were living in the building and the insurer disclaimed coverage on that ground:

Here, the disputed exclusionary provisions read as follows:

“C. We do not cover loss resulting directly or indirectly:

Vacancy or Occupancy

1. While a described building, whether intended for occupancy . . . is vacant or unoccupied beyond a period of sixty (60) consecutive days.

Increase in Hazard

2. While the hazard is increased by any means within the control or knowledge of the insured.”

​Construed in the context of the contract as a whole, the plain and ordinary meaning of these exclusionary provisions is not apparent. The exclusionary provisions at issue are listed in the supplemental special provisions that modified the original dwelling insurance policy. The contract provides for certain general exclusions in parts A and B, and thereafter included the above referenced supplemental general exclusions as part C. Part A provides that, “[w]e do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following” … , and lists conditions or events that could damage the insured premises, including, for example, earth movement, water damage, and power failure. Part C, as referenced above, does not contain any language after “directly or indirectly.” Thus, it is not clear whether the “vacancy or occupancy” or “increase in hazard” must cause the loss or whether the condition must simply exist at the time of the loss. Because the exclusionary provisions are ambiguous, and any ambiguity is construed against the insurer in favor of the insured, the plaintiff has established her prima facie entitlement to coverage … . Eubanks v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 2025 NY Slip Op 04460, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: At the time of the fire the building was inhabited by “unauthorized occupants” and coverage was disclaimed. However, the exclusionary provisions of the policy were ambiguous. The ambiguity must be construed in favor of the insured. Therefore the disclaimer constituted a breach of contract.

 

You might also like
DEBTOR’S LAWSUIT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY FILINGS, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE WAS ENTITLED TO RECOMMENCE THE SUIT PURSUANT TO CPLR 205 (a) WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY FROM STEPPING INTO AN OPENING THAT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR A PERSON TO FALL THROUGH IS NOT COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
A COURT REVIEWING THE DENIAL OF A FOIL REQUEST CANNOT BASE ITS RULING AFFIRMING THE DENIAL ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE AGENCY TO WHICH THE REQUEST WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to a Psychological Test Should Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Placed Her Mental Condition In Issue and Did Not Demonstrate the Test Was Invasive or Harmful
Question of Fact Whether City Created Hazardous Condition
MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY AWARDING HER SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED UNLOADING A TRUCK, HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE PARENTAL ACCESS SCHEDULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN RULED ON WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE... PLAINTIFF WAS TAKING DOWN A PLYWOOD FENCE WHEN A PIECE OF PLYWOOD FELL AND STRUCK...