Niccoli v. Monarch Life Insurance

New York Court of Appeals

Niccoli v. Monarch Life Insurance

334 N.E.2d 594, 36 N.Y.2d 892, 372 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1981

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 334 N.E.2d 594 (Niccoli v. Monarch Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Niccoli v. Monarch Life Insurance, 334 N.E.2d 594, 36 N.Y.2d 892, 372 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1981 (N.Y. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. The policy of insurance covered plaintiff’s occupation as physician and surgeon. There was evidence that plaintiff was disabled from performing his responsibilities as a surgeon during the two-year period .insured by the policy. What remained then was an issue of fact whether plaintiff’s disability satisfied the policy standard defining "total disability” as the "complete inability of the Insured to engage in his regular occupation.” Under an adequate charge the jury found that there was such disability. The Appellate Division having affirmed, the issue of fact is beyond review in this court (CPLR 5501, subd [b]; Kingsland v Erie County Agric. Soc., 298 NY 409, 415; see Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, p 452).

Defendant’s reliance on McGrail v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. (292 NY 419) is to no avail. In that case, under a more restrictive clause than that involved in this case, the court held that the clause must be read reasonably and sustained recovery for the plaintiff (pp 424-426).

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. The policy of insurance covered plaintiff’s occupation as physician and surgeon. There was evidence that plaintiff was disabled from performing his responsibilities as a surgeon during the two-year period .insured by the policy. What remained then was an issue of fact whether plaintiff’s disability satisfied the policy standard defining "total disability” as the "complete inability of the Insured to engage in his regular occupation.” Under an adequate charge the jury found that there was such disability. The Appellate Division having affirmed, the issue of fact is beyond review in this court (CPLR 5501, subd [b]; Kingsland v Erie County Agric. Soc., 298 NY 409, 415; see Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, p 452).

Defendant’s reliance on McGrail v Equitable Life Assur. Soc. (292 NY 419) is to no avail. In that case, under a more restrictive clause than that involved in this case, the court held that the clause must be read reasonably and sustained recovery for the plaintiff (pp 424-426).

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 N.E.2d 594, 36 N.Y.2d 892, 372 N.Y.S.2d 645, 1975 N.Y. LEXIS 1981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niccoli-v-monarch-life-insurance-ny-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack