Novak v. All City Insurance

New York Court of Appeals

Novak v. All City Insurance

374 N.E.2d 127, 43 N.Y.2d 854, 403 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1783

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 374 N.E.2d 127 (Novak v. All City 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

Novak v. All City Insurance, 374 N.E.2d 127, 43 N.Y.2d 854, 403 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1783 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

The indorsement attached to the comprehensive liability insurance policy and issued simultaneously with that policy by the respondent insurance company excludes insurance coverage for "Bodily Injury * * * arising out of (1) the named insured’s products”. The policy defines "named insured’s products” as "goods or products manufactured, sold, handled or distributed by the named insured”. So broad and clear a definition must be deemed to include food served to patron’s of the restaurant and adequately advised the insured as to the exclusion. Since we find the exclusionary clause unambiguous, it "must be given [its] plain and ordinary meaning” (Government Employees Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d 863, 864), excluding coverage for the claims set forth against the insured and for the judgment entered as a result thereof.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

The indorsement attached to the comprehensive liability insurance policy and issued simultaneously with that policy by the respondent insurance company excludes insurance coverage for "Bodily Injury * * * arising out of (1) the named insured’s products”. The policy defines "named insured’s products” as "goods or products manufactured, sold, handled or distributed by the named insured”. So broad and clear a definition must be deemed to include food served to patron’s of the restaurant and adequately advised the insured as to the exclusion. Since we find the exclusionary clause unambiguous, it "must be given [its] plain and ordinary meaning” (Government Employees Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d 863, 864), excluding coverage for the claims set forth against the insured and for the judgment entered as a result thereof.

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

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 N.E.2d 127, 43 N.Y.2d 854, 403 N.Y.S.2d 216, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/novak-v-all-city-insurance-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack