Cappelli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cappelli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

259 A.D.2d 581, 686 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2464

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 581 (Cappelli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile 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

Cappelli v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 259 A.D.2d 581, 686 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a judgment declaring the limits of liability for bodily injury coverage under a policy of insurance, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one [582]*582paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated January 5, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that coverage for bodily injury claims was limited to $100,000 per person and denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the coverage for bodily injury claims was $300,000 per accident when there were two or more claimants and made the declaration in favor of the defendant.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The modification of a contract results in the creation of a new contract between the parties which pro tanto supplants the affected provisions of the original agreement while leaving the balance of it intact (see, Beacon Term. Corp. v Chemprene, Inc., 75 AD2d 350; 22A NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 474; see also, Cortesi v R & D Constr. Corp., 73 NY2d 836). Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that an amendatory endorsement, which included explicit language making the limitation on coverage under “each occurrence” subject to the limitation on coverage per person, was part of the policy that was in effect at the time of the accident.

Moreover, the court properly found that the amendatory endorsement resulted in a clarification of coverage available under the policy rather than a reduction of coverage. This conclusion is plainly supported by the documentation that was supplied by the defendant to the State Insurance Department in connection with the filing of the amendatory endorsement. Accordingly, the provisions of Insurance Law § 3425 applicable to renewals do not control. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a judgment declaring the limits of liability for bodily injury coverage under a policy of insurance, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one [582]*582paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated January 5, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment declaring that coverage for bodily injury claims was limited to $100,000 per person and denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment declaring that the coverage for bodily injury claims was $300,000 per accident when there were two or more claimants and made the declaration in favor of the defendant.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The modification of a contract results in the creation of a new contract between the parties which pro tanto supplants the affected provisions of the original agreement while leaving the balance of it intact (see, Beacon Term. Corp. v Chemprene, Inc., 75 AD2d 350; 22A NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 474; see also, Cortesi v R & D Constr. Corp., 73 NY2d 836). Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that an amendatory endorsement, which included explicit language making the limitation on coverage under “each occurrence” subject to the limitation on coverage per person, was part of the policy that was in effect at the time of the accident.

Moreover, the court properly found that the amendatory endorsement resulted in a clarification of coverage available under the policy rather than a reduction of coverage. This conclusion is plainly supported by the documentation that was supplied by the defendant to the State Insurance Department in connection with the filing of the amendatory endorsement. Accordingly, the provisions of Insurance Law § 3425 applicable to renewals do not control. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 581, 686 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cappelli-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack