Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. L. Knife & Son, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. L. Knife & Son, Inc.

138 A.D.3d 531, 29 N.Y.S.3d 353

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

DecidedApril 14, 2016

Docket842 157164/13

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 138 A.D.3d 531 (Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. L. Knife & Son, Inc.) 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

Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. L. Knife & Son, Inc., 138 A.D.3d 531, 29 N.Y.S.3d 353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 20, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declaring the insurance policy it issued to defendants void ab initio and dismissing defendants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks to void ab initio the insurance policy it issued to defendants bn the ground that defendants misrepresented the total insurable value (TIV) of the insured premises and its contents. The motion court correctly denied plaintiff’s motion, since plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that defendants made any misrepresentation (see generally 128 Hester LLC v New York Mar. & Gen. Ins. Co., 126 AD3d 447, 447 [1st Dept 2015]). Although plaintiff’s quotation for the policy contains the statement that it was basing the premium on the “$7 million TIV,” defendants’ broker did not provide any information on the insurance application regarding the TIV of the premises’ contents. The broker submitted an affidavit stating that she recalled plaintiff’s wholesale insurance broker asking her only to provide the amount of coverage desired and that “is precisely what [she] provided.” Although the wholesale broker later sent plaintiff an email indicating the “contents value,” an issue of fact exists as to whether the broker was acting on defendants’ behalf. After plaintiff issued the policy, its own investigation of the property, which could have uncovered the TIV of the property and its contents, resulted in no underwriting activity, and other internal insurance company documents suggest that the decision to issue the policy and the premium charged were not tethered to the TIV.

There are also factual issues surrounding whether any purported misrepresentation would have been “material” such that it would have the effect of voiding the policy, which is “ordinarily a question of fact” (Matter of Union Indem. Ins. Co. of NY, 200 AD2d 99, 107 [1st Dept 1994], affd 89 NY2d 94 [1996]). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Acosta, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered April 20, 2015, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment declaring the insurance policy it issued to defendants void ab initio and dismissing defendants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks to void ab initio the insurance policy it issued to defendants bn the ground that defendants misrepresented the total insurable value (TIV) of the insured premises and its contents. The motion court correctly denied plaintiff’s motion, since plaintiff failed to establish as a matter of law that defendants made any misrepresentation (see generally 128 Hester LLC v New York Mar. & Gen. Ins. Co., 126 AD3d 447, 447 [1st Dept 2015]). Although plaintiff’s quotation for the policy contains the statement that it was basing the premium on the “$7 million TIV,” defendants’ broker did not provide any information on the insurance application regarding the TIV of the premises’ contents. The broker submitted an affidavit stating that she recalled plaintiff’s wholesale insurance broker asking her only to provide the amount of coverage desired and that “is precisely what [she] provided.” Although the wholesale broker later sent plaintiff an email indicating the “contents value,” an issue of fact exists as to whether the broker was acting on defendants’ behalf. After plaintiff issued the policy, its own investigation of the property, which could have uncovered the TIV of the property and its contents, resulted in no underwriting activity, and other internal insurance company documents suggest that the decision to issue the policy and the premium charged were not tethered to the TIV.

There are also factual issues surrounding whether any purported misrepresentation would have been “material” such that it would have the effect of voiding the policy, which is “ordinarily a question of fact” (Matter of Union Indem. Ins. Co. of NY, 200 AD2d 99, 107 [1st Dept 1994], affd 89 NY2d 94 [1996]). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Acosta, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 531, 29 N.Y.S.3d 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/great-am-ins-co-of-ny-v-l-knife-son-inc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack