Brzozowski v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brzozowski v. Allstate Insurance

297 A.D.2d 696, 747 N.Y.2d 538, 747 N.Y.S.2d 538, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 696 (Brzozowski v. Allstate Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brzozowski v. Allstate Insurance, 297 A.D.2d 696, 747 N.Y.2d 538, 747 N.Y.S.2d 538, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff leased a vehicle and obtained automobile insurance, including theft coverage, from the appellant. The vehicle was allegedly stolen, but the appellant disclaimed coverage on grounds which are not relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff then commenced this action, among other things, to recover on the policy. The vehicle was ultimately recovered nearly two years after the alleged theft. The appellant subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending that it had no liability under the terms of the policy because the vehicle was recovered with minimal damage.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the appellant did not establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. If it is ultimately determined that the appellant breached the contract of insurance by improperly disclaiming coverage, the appellant may be hable under the policy for the plaintiff’s loss because the vehicle was not recovered within a reasonable time after the alleged theft (see Oppenheimer v Baker & Williams, 225 App Div 58, 60). Consequently, the appellant’s motion was properly denied. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The plaintiff leased a vehicle and obtained automobile insurance, including theft coverage, from the appellant. The vehicle was allegedly stolen, but the appellant disclaimed coverage on grounds which are not relevant to this appeal. The plaintiff then commenced this action, among other things, to recover on the policy. The vehicle was ultimately recovered nearly two years after the alleged theft. The appellant subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, contending that it had no liability under the terms of the policy because the vehicle was recovered with minimal damage.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the appellant did not establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. If it is ultimately determined that the appellant breached the contract of insurance by improperly disclaiming coverage, the appellant may be hable under the policy for the plaintiff’s loss because the vehicle was not recovered within a reasonable time after the alleged theft (see Oppenheimer v Baker & Williams, 225 App Div 58, 60). Consequently, the appellant’s motion was properly denied. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 696, 747 N.Y.2d 538, 747 N.Y.S.2d 538, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brzozowski-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack