Sarhal v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sarhal v. Allstate Insurance

209 A.D.2d 923, 619 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11904

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 923 (Sarhal 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

Sarhal v. Allstate Insurance, 209 A.D.2d 923, 619 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Roberts, J.H.O.). We add only that the contention of plaintiff that the insured property’s market value is irrelevant in determining the liability of the insurer under its fire insurance policy is without merit (see, McAnarney v Newark Fire Ins. Co., 247 NY 176; Incardona v Home Indem. Co., 60 AD2d 749). Moreover, the testimony of defendant’s claim representative established the materiality of market value in determining actual cash value (see generally, 70 NY Jur 2d, Insurance, § 1638). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Roberts, J.H.O.—Recover Insurance Proceeds.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Roberts, J.H.O.). We add only that the contention of plaintiff that the insured property’s market value is irrelevant in determining the liability of the insurer under its fire insurance policy is without merit (see, McAnarney v Newark Fire Ins. Co., 247 NY 176; Incardona v Home Indem. Co., 60 AD2d 749). Moreover, the testimony of defendant’s claim representative established the materiality of market value in determining actual cash value (see generally, 70 NY Jur 2d, Insurance, § 1638). (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Roberts, J.H.O.—Recover Insurance Proceeds.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 923, 619 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sarhal-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack