Omega Casting Corp. v. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Omega Casting Corp. v. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance

270 A.D.2d 126, 705 N.Y.S.2d 44, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2986

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 126 (Omega Casting Corp. v. Graphic Arts Mutual 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

Omega Casting Corp. v. Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance, 270 A.D.2d 126, 705 N.Y.S.2d 44, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about December 18, 1998, inter alia, denying defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject policy of insurance issued by defendant insurer to plaintiff jewelry manufacturer limits the insurer’s liability [127]*127thereunder for loss occasioned by the theft of the insured’s “pattern[s]” to- $2,500. Because it is not clear, as a matter of law, that limitation should apply where the insured’s loss is attributable to theft of its jewelry “model[s],” summary judgment was properly denied. The affidavits of jewelry manufacturers submitted by plaintiff were sufficient to raise a triable question as to whether the terms “model” and “pattern”, when understood from the insured’s perspective as a jewelry manufacturer, were, in fact, interchangeable as defendant-appellant contends. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about December 18, 1998, inter alia, denying defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject policy of insurance issued by defendant insurer to plaintiff jewelry manufacturer limits the insurer’s liability [127]*127thereunder for loss occasioned by the theft of the insured’s “pattern[s]” to- $2,500. Because it is not clear, as a matter of law, that limitation should apply where the insured’s loss is attributable to theft of its jewelry “model[s],” summary judgment was properly denied. The affidavits of jewelry manufacturers submitted by plaintiff were sufficient to raise a triable question as to whether the terms “model” and “pattern”, when understood from the insured’s perspective as a jewelry manufacturer, were, in fact, interchangeable as defendant-appellant contends. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 126, 705 N.Y.S.2d 44, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/omega-casting-corp-v-graphic-arts-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2000.