Sanginito v. National Grange Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanginito v. National Grange Mutual Insurance

52 A.D.3d 267, 859 N.Y.S.2d 431

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

DecidedJune 10, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.3d 267 (Sanginito v. National Grange 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

Sanginito v. National Grange Mutual Insurance, 52 A.D.3d 267, 859 N.Y.S.2d 431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered August 30, 2007, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[268]*268To negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretations, and applies in the particular case (Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp., 80 NY2d 640, 652 [1993]).

We agree with the motion court that the exclusion is not clear and unambiguous. Further, there are unresolved questions of fact remaining as to whether or not the business purpose of and work performed by plaintiffs excluded them from coverage under the policy. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Williams, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered August 30, 2007, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[268]*268To negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretations, and applies in the particular case (Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp., 80 NY2d 640, 652 [1993]).

We agree with the motion court that the exclusion is not clear and unambiguous. Further, there are unresolved questions of fact remaining as to whether or not the business purpose of and work performed by plaintiffs excluded them from coverage under the policy. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Williams, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 267, 859 N.Y.S.2d 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanginito-v-national-grange-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack