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
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING OWNER, NO ESPINAL FACTORS ALLEGED WITH RESPECT TO THE CLEANING SERVICE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HEARING NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER FAMILY COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING; JURISDICTION DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTY WHERE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT OWNED A SEASONAL SECOND HOME (WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED AFTER COVID REACHED NEW YORK CITY) WAS NOT THE PROPER VENUE FOR THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE HOLDER OF A DEED INTENDED AS SECURITY IN THE NATURE OF A MORTGAGE MUST PROCEED BY FORECLOSURE TO EXTINGUISH THE MORTGAGOR’S INTEREST; HERE THE SUBSEQUENT GOOD FAITH PURCHASERS OF THE PROPERTY WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE MORTGAGEE’S CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION OF THEIR DEED AND A DECLARATION THEIR DEED WAS NULL AND VOID (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE OF RPAPL 1304 WHICH REQUIRES THAT NOTHING ELSE BE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Substantial Evidence Did Not Support Department of Health’s Finding that Property Transfers Rendered Petitioner Ineligible for Medicaid Benefits
THE INSPECTION PIT, WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; PLAINTIFF’S FALL INTO THE PIT WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Allegations of Wrongdoing Insufficient to Support Shareholders Derivative Action Pursuant to BCL 626 (c)

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 © 2026 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...