Peters v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

New York Court of Appeals

Peters v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

801 N.E.2d 416, 100 N.Y.2d 634, 769 N.Y.S.2d 195, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3421

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 30, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 801 N.E.2d 416 (Peters v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company) 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

Peters v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 801 N.E.2d 416, 100 N.Y.2d 634, 769 N.Y.S.2d 195, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3421 (N.Y. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to defendant, by granting judgment declaring that defendant has no duty to indemnify in connection with the underlying personal injury action and, as so modified, affirmed (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]). State Farm demonstrated as a matter of law that the policy exclusion for “bodily injury,” which is either “expected or intended by an insured” or “which is the result of willful and malicious acts of an insured,” precludes coverage of the incident at issue (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Mugavero, 79 NY2d *636 153 [1992]). Moreover, State Farm, which learned of the claim in January 1992 and issued reservation of rights letters in February, concluded its investigation and timely disclaimed coverage based on the policy exclusion on April 9, 1992.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, with costs to defendant, by declaring that defendant has no duty to indemnify in connection with the underlying personal injury action and, as so modified, affirmed, in a memorandum.

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 modified, with costs to defendant, by granting judgment declaring that defendant has no duty to indemnify in connection with the underlying personal injury action and, as so modified, affirmed (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]). State Farm demonstrated as a matter of law that the policy exclusion for “bodily injury,” which is either “expected or intended by an insured” or “which is the result of willful and malicious acts of an insured,” precludes coverage of the incident at issue (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Mugavero, 79 NY2d *636 153 [1992]). Moreover, State Farm, which learned of the claim in January 1992 and issued reservation of rights letters in February, concluded its investigation and timely disclaimed coverage based on the policy exclusion on April 9, 1992.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, with costs to defendant, by declaring that defendant has no duty to indemnify in connection with the underlying personal injury action and, as so modified, affirmed, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

801 N.E.2d 416, 100 N.Y.2d 634, 769 N.Y.S.2d 195, 2003 N.Y. LEXIS 3421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-ny-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack