Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision addresses an insurance coverage dispute regarding whether a multi-family residential building qualifies as "residence premises" under the defendant's policy. The court reversed the lower court's denial of the insurer's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy's unambiguous limitation to one-, two-, three-, or four-family dwellings precluded coverage for the five- or six-family dwelling at issue. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for entry of a declaratory judgment confirming the lack of coverage.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the insurance policy’s definition of “residence premises” excludes a five‑ or six‑family dwelling
- Whether summary judgment was proper in favor of the insurer
Holdings
- The policy unambiguously limits coverage to one‑, two‑, three‑, or four‑family dwellings; a five‑ or six‑family dwelling does not qualify as a “residence premises.”
- Summary judgment was proper because the plaintiff failed to raise any triable issue of fact regarding the policy’s definition.
Key quotations
“"While it is true that policies of insurance are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the insurer, where the provisions of the policy are clear and unambiguous, they must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and courts should refrain from rewriting the agreement" (Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Kligler, 42 NY2d 863, 864).” (*1)
“"Interpretation of unambiguous provisions of an insurance contract is a matter of law for the court" (see White v. Continental Cas. Co., 9 NY3d 264, 267).” (*1)
Factual background
Gregory A. Simms owned a residential building in Brooklyn that suffered fire damage. The building was covered by an insurance policy issued by Liberty Insurance Corporation. The insurer denied coverage, asserting that the property was a five‑ or six‑family dwelling and therefore did not meet the policy's definition of "residence premises," which limited coverage to one‑ to four‑family dwellings.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Kings County denied the insurer's cross‑motion for summary judgment on August 15, 2023, and after reargument on October 30, 2023, reaffirmed that denial. The appellant appealed both orders to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
Remand instructions
Matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County for entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff's property does not conform to the definition of “residence premises” contained in the insurance policy.