Kennan v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

Civil Court of the City of New York

Kennan v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

59 Misc. 2d 536, 299 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1632

CourtCivil Court of the City of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 59 Misc. 2d 536 (Kennan v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Civil Court of the City of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kennan v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 59 Misc. 2d 536, 299 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1632 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Jerome W. Marks, J.

The group insurance contract sued upon was prepared and drafted by defendant and must be strictly construed against it.

In that part of the contract which relates to the 1 ‘ covered charges ” for which the defendant is liable, defendant employs the word “equipment” without precise definition. Implicit in the use of this word, “ equipment,” is that the equipment item be needful and necessary to alleviate plaintiff’s illness as diagnosed by his doctor ■(Polliak v. Smith, 19 N. J. Super. 365). The air-conditioning unit ordered by plaintiff’s doctor for the purpose of affording plaintiff relief of his ailment is embraced in the term “ equipment ” and therefore plaintiff was justified in buying the air-conditioning unit. Judgment for plaintiff against defendant for $113.06 and appropriate interest.

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

Jerome W. Marks, J.

The group insurance contract sued upon was prepared and drafted by defendant and must be strictly construed against it.

In that part of the contract which relates to the 1 ‘ covered charges ” for which the defendant is liable, defendant employs the word “equipment” without precise definition. Implicit in the use of this word, “ equipment,” is that the equipment item be needful and necessary to alleviate plaintiff’s illness as diagnosed by his doctor ■(Polliak v. Smith, 19 N. J. Super. 365). The air-conditioning unit ordered by plaintiff’s doctor for the purpose of affording plaintiff relief of his ailment is embraced in the term “ equipment ” and therefore plaintiff was justified in buying the air-conditioning unit. Judgment for plaintiff against defendant for $113.06 and appropriate interest.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 Misc. 2d 536, 299 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1969 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennan-v-equitable-life-assurance-society-of-the-united-states-nycivct-1969.