Caporino v. Travelers Ins. Co.
Citation | 62 N.Y.2d 234,476 N.Y.S.2d 519,465 N.E.2d 26 |
Parties | , 465 N.E.2d 26 Grace M. CAPORINO, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Gabriel A. Caporino, Deceased, Respondent, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, et al., Defendants, and Prudential Insurance Company of America, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 05 June 1984 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Where insurance policies provided that additional benefits would be paid upon proof that the insured's death resulted from external, violent and accidental means evidenced by a visible exterior wound, and that supplemental benefits would be paid if death occurred before a specified date, the beneficiary raised no triable issue of fact concerning her right to recover either additional or supplemental benefits by presenting evidence of the insured's unexplained disappearance, and summary judgment should have been granted in favor of the insurers dismissing her claims.
Respondent's husband, Gabriel Caporino, disappeared on March 7, 1974, while in New Orleans on a business trip. The circumstances of his disappearance have never been explained, and his body has not been found. In November, 1979, the Surrogate's Court decreed Caporino to be dead due to his unexplained absence and, pursuant to EPTL 2-1.7, fixed the date of his death as March 7, 1979--five years from his disappearance--on the ground that there was no proof that Caporino was exposed to a specific peril of death before that date, as is required for a finding that death occurred earlier. At the time of his death Caporino held life insurance policies issued by appellants, Travelers Insurance Company and Prudential Insurance Company of America, each of which named respondent as beneficiary. Upon the Surrogate's decree, each appellant paid respondent the face amount of its policy.
At issue on this appeal is respondent's entitlement to additional benefits under an "additional indemnity provision" and "supplemental agreement" in the Travelers policy, and an "accidental means death benefit" in the Prudential policy. The relevant language of the accidental death benefit provision in the Travelers policy is as follows: "THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY agrees to pay to the Beneficiary named in the above-numbered Life Contract, the amount of Additional Indemnity above stated in addition to the amount of insurance payable in the event of the death of the Insured under the said Life Contract immediately upon receipt of due proof that the death of the said Insured has resulted from bodily injuries effected directly and independently of all other causes through external, violent and accidental means within ninety days from the date of the accident which shall have caused such injuries and of which (except in the case of drowning or internal injuries revealed by an autopsy) there is a visible contusion or wound on the exterior of the body, and provided such death does not result from a risk stated herein as not assumed." The Prudential policy has a similar clause which also requires "due proof" of death "solely through external, violent and accidental means" that is "evidenced by a visible contusion or wound on the exterior of the body." The Travelers policy, in addition, contains a supplemental agreement that provides in pertinent part: "The Travelers Insurance Company agrees that if the insurance under the above numbered life contract shall become...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co.
...is unambiguous, its interpretation is strictly a question of law for the court. Caporino v. Travelers Insurance Co., 62 N.Y.2d 234, 239, 476 N.Y.S.2d 519, 521, 465 N.E.2d 26, 27 (1984) (per curiam); Wesolowski, 33 N.Y.2d at 172, 350 N.Y.S.2d at 898, 305 N.E.2d at 909 ("the courts have decla......
-
Black & Veatch Corp. v. Aspen Ins. (Uk) Ltd.
...fair intent and meaning in order to obviate objections which might have been foreseen and guarded against.' Caporino v. Travelers Ins. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 234, 239, 465 N.E.2d 26 (1984)) The first of these other provisions, and the one most strongly argued by B&V, is exclusion F, which reads:"Pr......
-
Tozzi v. Long Island R. Co.
...526 N.E.2d 8; W.W.W. Assoc., Inc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639; Caporino v. Travelers Ins. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 234, 239, 476 N.Y.S.2d 519, 465 N.E.2d 26), and 2) estoppel cannot be invoked to create insurance coverage (see, Zappone v. Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d ......
-
Tozzi v. Long Island R. Co.
...526 N.E.2d 8; W.W.W. Assoc., Inc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639; Caporino v. Travelers Ins. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 234, 239, 476 N.Y.S.2d 519, 465 N.E.2d 26), and 2) estoppel cannot be invoked to create insurance coverage (see, Zappone v. Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d ......