Orenshein v. Government Employees Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Orenshein v. Government Employees Insurance

212 A.D.2d 373, 622 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1220

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.2d 373 (Orenshein v. Government Employees 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

Orenshein v. Government Employees Insurance, 212 A.D.2d 373, 622 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1220 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered December 16, 1993, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of awarding plaintiffs the sum of $10,000, on their breach of contract claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this underinsured motorist coverage case, the IAS Court properly found that the language of the policy, which cross-referenced the terms uninsured and underinsured, would lead a policyholder to the reasonable conclusion that she had also purchased underinsurance. Plaintiffs’ recovery was correctly limited to $10,000, the amount clearly listed in the policy for uninsured motorist coverage. We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining argument and find it without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ross, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered December 16, 1993, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment to the extent of awarding plaintiffs the sum of $10,000, on their breach of contract claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this underinsured motorist coverage case, the IAS Court properly found that the language of the policy, which cross-referenced the terms uninsured and underinsured, would lead a policyholder to the reasonable conclusion that she had also purchased underinsurance. Plaintiffs’ recovery was correctly limited to $10,000, the amount clearly listed in the policy for uninsured motorist coverage. We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining argument and find it without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 373, 622 N.Y.S.2d 258, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orenshein-v-government-employees-insurance-nyappdiv-1995.