Varon v. Country-Wide Insurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Varon v. Country-Wide Insurance Co.

2017 NY Slip Op 583, 146 A.D.3d 709, 45 N.Y.S.3d 904

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2017

Docket2911 154592/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 583 (Varon v. Country-Wide Insurance Co.) 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

Varon v. Country-Wide Insurance Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 583, 146 A.D.3d 709, 45 N.Y.S.3d 904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered on or about September 2, 2014, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, and declared that defendant insurance company is not required to tender the policy it issued to Adis Reckovic (the offending driver) to trigger plaintiff’s right to seek underinsured motorist benefits from nonparty insurance company High Point, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The excess coverage clause in the offending driver’s policy states, in relevant part, that the driver’s coverage “shall be excess over any other collectible insurance.” The motion court correctly refused to interpret the phrase “any other collectible insurance” to mean “any other collectible primary insurance,” and correctly determined that the driver’s coverage is “excess” to plaintiff’s High Point insurance.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered on or about September 2, 2014, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment, and declared that defendant insurance company is not required to tender the policy it issued to Adis Reckovic (the offending driver) to trigger plaintiff’s right to seek underinsured motorist benefits from nonparty insurance company High Point, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The excess coverage clause in the offending driver’s policy states, in relevant part, that the driver’s coverage “shall be excess over any other collectible insurance.” The motion court correctly refused to interpret the phrase “any other collectible insurance” to mean “any other collectible primary insurance,” and correctly determined that the driver’s coverage is “excess” to plaintiff’s High Point insurance.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman, Webber and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 583, 146 A.D.3d 709, 45 N.Y.S.3d 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/varon-v-country-wide-insurance-co-nyappdiv-2017.