L.C.E.L. Collectibles, Inc. v. American Insurance

228 A.D.2d 196, 643 N.Y.2d 102, 643 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6407
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 6, 1996·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

The motion court properly dismissed the action as against defendants-respondents, operating as an independent insur[197]*197anee agency, on the ground that they had no duty to recommend flood insurance or to inspect the location of plaintiffs property to determine whether it was near a flood plain or swamp, where plaintiff neither specifically requested such insurance nor communicated the area’s susceptibility to flood damage (see, Wied v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 208 AD2d 1132). Plaintiff’s request for "the best and most comprehensive coverage” did not trigger such a duty (see, Chaim v Benedict, 216 AD2d 347), nor did it relieve plaintiff of its obligation to read the policy, which contained an express exclusion for flood loss (see, Rogers v Urbanke, 194 AD2d 1024). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

L.C.E.L. Collectibles, Inc. v. American Insurance, 228 A.D.2d 196, 643 N.Y.2d 102, 643 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6407 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 196 (L.C.E.L. Collectibles, Inc. v. American Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Transportation Insurance v. AARK Construction Group, Ltd.
526 F. Supp. 2d 350 (E.D. New York, 2007)
Wisniski v. Brown & Brown Ins. Co. of PA
906 A.2d 571 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)
Coventry Coating Corp. v. Verlan Fire Insurance
303 A.D.2d 164 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Chicago Insurance v. Borsody
165 F. Supp. 2d 592 (S.D. New York, 2001)
Nicholas J. Masterpol, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Companies
273 A.D.2d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)