Gilbert v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gilbert v. Allstate Insurance

95 A.D.3d 1072, 943 N.Y.S.2d 780

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

DecidedMay 15, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 95 A.D.3d 1072 (Gilbert 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

Gilbert v. Allstate Insurance, 95 A.D.3d 1072, 943 N.Y.S.2d 780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[1073]*1073In an action to recover additional proceeds of a fire insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated May 12, 2011, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff owned property as a tenant in common with a business partner, Alice Gardner, who is not a party to this action. In 1996 the plaintiff procured a policy of fire insurance on the property from the defendant solely in his own name. On October 2, 2009, the premises were destroyed by a fire. The defendant paid the plaintiff one-half of the value of the property on the ground that the plaintiff had only a one-half insurable interest in the property. The plaintiff, arguing that a tenant-in-common has an undivided right to the full use, enjoyment, and possession of the entire property (see Butler v Rafferty, 100 NY2d 265, 269 [2003]), brought this action to recover the full value of the destroyed premises. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

Insurance Law § 3401 limits a contract or policy of insurance to the insured’s “insurable interest.” When two cotenants own real property which is damaged by a fire and insurance is procured in the name of only one cotenant, recovery under the policy is limited to the insured cotenant’s one-half interest in the real property (see Graziane v National Sur. Corp., 120 AD2d 773, 775 [1986]; Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252 [1984]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

[1073]*1073In an action to recover additional proceeds of a fire insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated May 12, 2011, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff owned property as a tenant in common with a business partner, Alice Gardner, who is not a party to this action. In 1996 the plaintiff procured a policy of fire insurance on the property from the defendant solely in his own name. On October 2, 2009, the premises were destroyed by a fire. The defendant paid the plaintiff one-half of the value of the property on the ground that the plaintiff had only a one-half insurable interest in the property. The plaintiff, arguing that a tenant-in-common has an undivided right to the full use, enjoyment, and possession of the entire property (see Butler v Rafferty, 100 NY2d 265, 269 [2003]), brought this action to recover the full value of the destroyed premises. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm.

Insurance Law § 3401 limits a contract or policy of insurance to the insured’s “insurable interest.” When two cotenants own real property which is damaged by a fire and insurance is procured in the name of only one cotenant, recovery under the policy is limited to the insured cotenant’s one-half interest in the real property (see Graziane v National Sur. Corp., 120 AD2d 773, 775 [1986]; Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252 [1984]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.E, Balkin, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.3d 1072, 943 N.Y.S.2d 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack