Cohen v. First Unum Life Insurance

68 A.D.3d 423, 888 N.Y.2d 747

Opinion

Plaintiff’s efforts to create an ambiguity in the insurance policy are unavailing (see Moore v Kopel, 237 AD2d 124, 125 [1997]). The term “disability period” as used in the policy is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning. An unsupported hearsay statement attributed by plaintiff to a purported agent of defendant neither changes the policy’s terms nor renders them ambiguous (see Kass v Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566 [1998]).

We have considered and rejected plaintiffs remaining contention. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Nardelli and Richter, JJ.

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

Cohen v. First Unum Life Insurance, 68 A.D.3d 423, 888 N.Y.2d 747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

68 A.D.3d 423 (Cohen v. First Unum Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kass v. Kass
696 N.E.2d 174 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
Moore v. Kopel
237 A.D.2d 124 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)