Hartford Fire Insurance v. Siegfried Press, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Siegfried Press, Inc.

228 A.D.2d 476, 643 N.Y.2d 679, 643 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6577

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 1996·Published

Opinion

The plaintiff failed to meet the heavy burden necessary to show that the "full value endorsement” should be removed from the insurance policy issued by the plaintiff to the defendants because it was added thereto by mutual mistake (see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570; Matter of Union Indem. Ins. Co., 162 AD2d 398). The plaintiff’s contention that there was a mutual mistake because the defendants did not specifically request that such a provision be included in the insurance policy is meritless (see, Porter v Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 292 NY 176, 184).

In addition, since the plaintiff drafted the ambiguous "full value endorsement”, it was properly construed in the light most favorable to the defendants (see, Ruder & Finn v Seaboard Sur. Co., 52 NY2d 663; Tonkin v California Ins. Co., 294 NY 326).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

The plaintiff failed to meet the heavy burden necessary to show that the "full value endorsement” should be removed from the insurance policy issued by the plaintiff to the defendants because it was added thereto by mutual mistake (see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570; Matter of Union Indem. Ins. Co., 162 AD2d 398). The plaintiff’s contention that there was a mutual mistake because the defendants did not specifically request that such a provision be included in the insurance policy is meritless (see, Porter v Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 292 NY 176, 184).

In addition, since the plaintiff drafted the ambiguous "full value endorsement”, it was properly construed in the light most favorable to the defendants (see, Ruder & Finn v Seaboard Sur. Co., 52 NY2d 663; Tonkin v California Ins. Co., 294 NY 326).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Siegfried Press, Inc., 228 A.D.2d 476, 643 N.Y.2d 679, 643 N.Y.S.2d 679, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

228 A.D.2d 476 (Hartford Fire Insurance v. Siegfried Press, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related