Rovelli v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rovelli v. Allstate Insurance

38 A.D.3d 241, 831 N.Y.S.2d 150

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 241 (Rovelli v. Allstate 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

Rovelli v. Allstate Insurance, 38 A.D.3d 241, 831 N.Y.S.2d 150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, [242]*242New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 19, 2006, which vacated a prior judgment that had directed a verdict dismissing this action, and ordered a new trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The directed verdict was based on the court’s misapprehension of the state of the law concerning an exclusion for flood damage in a homeowners’ policy, and not, as defendant urges, on a failure of proof or an inability to overcome the best evidence rule. Furthermore, the court did not err, upon reconsideration of the directed verdict, in finding that the exclusion for flood coverage did not apply where a pipe had burst (see Ender v National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 169 AD2d 420 [1991]). Whether the exclusion for wear and tear applies is not at issue before this Court at this time; nor is the applicability of the best evidence rule, or the relevance of the partial payment by defendant for the claim. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, [242]*242New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 19, 2006, which vacated a prior judgment that had directed a verdict dismissing this action, and ordered a new trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The directed verdict was based on the court’s misapprehension of the state of the law concerning an exclusion for flood damage in a homeowners’ policy, and not, as defendant urges, on a failure of proof or an inability to overcome the best evidence rule. Furthermore, the court did not err, upon reconsideration of the directed verdict, in finding that the exclusion for flood coverage did not apply where a pipe had burst (see Ender v National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 169 AD2d 420 [1991]). Whether the exclusion for wear and tear applies is not at issue before this Court at this time; nor is the applicability of the best evidence rule, or the relevance of the partial payment by defendant for the claim. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 241, 831 N.Y.S.2d 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rovelli-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack