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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

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

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

DecidedJune 6, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 196 (L.C.E.L. Collectibles, Inc. v. American 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 196, 643 N.Y.2d 102, 643 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lcel-collectibles-inc-v-american-insurance-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack