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