[Download] "American Surety Company New York v. National Fire Insurance Company Hartford" by Supreme Court of New York ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: American Surety Company New York v. National Fire Insurance Company Hartford
• Author : Supreme Court of New York
• Release Date : January 26, 1966
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 78 KB

Description

Order, entered February 11, 1965, unanimously modified, on the law, with costs and disbursements to abide the event, to delete the provisions thereof granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and directing entry thereof, and said motion denied; and judgment, pursuant to such order, dismissing plaintiff's complaint, unanimously reversed and vacated, on the law, with costs and disbursements to abide the event. The record here does not justify a matter of law holding that the damage to the electrical equipment and material of Broadway Maintenance Corporation (Broadway) is excluded from coverage under the policy of insurance issued by the defendant. The damage was occasioned by the flooded conditions of the street and of an underground pit and passageways due to an unusually heavy rainstorm and such damage would be embraced within the extended coverage of defendant's policy unless it is expressly excluded from coverage as ""loss or damage caused by flood"". In this connection, the policy expressly provides: ""9. Perils excluded. This policy does not insure against: * * * h. Loss or damage caused by flood except while the insured property is in transit. Flood shall include waves, tides or tidal water and the rising (including overflowing or breaking of boundaries) of lakes, ponds, reservoirs, rivers, harbors, streams and similar bodies of water, whether driven by wind or not"". The burden is placed upon the defendant to establish that the instant property damage is embraced by such exclusionary clause. ""To sustain the construction of an exclusion provision in a policy as urged by the insurer, the insurer has the burden of establishing that the words and expressions used not only are susceptible of that construction, but that it is the only construction which can be fairly placed thereon."" (29 N. Y. Jur., Insurance, § 623, p. 616.) Any ambiguity in the exclusionary clause is to be resolved against the insurer and in favor of the insured. (Sincoff v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 11 N.Y.2d 386, 390; Shneiderman v. Metropolitan Cas. Co., 14 A.D.2d 284, 289.) Where, however, ambiguous words are to be construed in the light of extrinsic evidence or the surrounding circumstances, the meaning of such words may become a question of fact for the jury. (29 N. Y. Jur., Insurance, § 593, p. 580; see, also, 46 C. J. S., Insurance, § 1368; Lachs v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N. Y., 306 N. Y. 357; 17A C. J. S., Contracts, § 621, p. 1259.) Accordingly here, where, in light of the circumstances, there exists an uncertainty as to the meaning and scope of the term ""flood"" as used in the exclusionary clause, the defendant was not entitled to have the issue resolved in its favor as a matter of law. Finally, the inadequacy of the record and of the briefing precludes a determination of the validity of certain defenses presented by defendant. We are unable to determine whether Broadway was directly insured as a named insured under defendant's policy.

Free Books Download "American Surety Company New York v. National Fire Insurance Company Hartford" PDF ePub Kindle