Korson v. Preferred Mutual Insurance Company

Decision Date28 October 2008
Docket Number2007-08332
Citation55 A.D.3d 879,866 N.Y.S.2d 338,2008 NY Slip Op 08298
PartiesSTEVEN KORSON, Appellant, v. PREFERRED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding a provision thereto searching the record and awarding summary judgment to the defendant; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the defendant is not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff in an action entitled Powell v Korson, pending in the Supreme Court, Orange County, under index No. 0785/05.

At all relevant times, Steven Korson (hereinafter the plaintiff) and his brother, Dean Korson, resided in a house located in Warwick, New York. The plaintiff lived on the second floor. Dean, his wife Brenda, her daughter Crystal Wise (Dean's stepdaughter), and Crystal's daughter Aaliyah Powell (Dean's step-granddaughter), resided on the first floor and in the basement. In 2005, Wise brought an action against the plaintiff and Dean to recover damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Aaliyah as a result of lead poisoning while Aaliyah and Wise resided in the house. Subsequently, the defendant, Preferred Mutual Insurance Company, denied the plaintiff's claim under a homeowner's insurance policy (hereinafter the policy) for a defense and indemnification in the underlying personal injury action. Both the plaintiff and Dean were named insureds under the policy. In issuing its disclaimer, the defendant relied on a policy exclusion which excludes from liability coverage, "bodily injury to you, and if residents of your household, your relatives, and persons under the age of 21 in your care or in the care of your resident relatives." The policy contained no definition of the term "household."

The plaintiff brought the instant action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify him in the underlying action. In a prior order, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion, among other things, for summary judgment, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery. This Court affirmed the prior order (see Korson v Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 39 AD3d 483 [2007]), finding that, in order to prevail on the motion, the plaintiff was required to "establish either that Aaliyah was not in Dean's care" or "that Dean did not reside with the plaintiff," and that the plaintiff's moving papers "established neither" (id. at 485). After completion of discovery, which included, inter alia, the parties' depositions, and a full inspection of the premises by the defendant, the plaintiff renewed his summary judgment motion, seeking, in addition to a declaration of coverage in the underlying action, attorney's fees incurred in both that action and the instant one.

The issue presented is whether or not Dean resided with the plaintiff in the latter's household. The term "household," as used in insurance policies, has been characterized as ambiguous and devoid of any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Defebio v. Allstate Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 28 Septiembre 2018
    ...where the insured does not make an adequate showing that she maintained a separate household. See, e.g., Korson v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 55 A.D.3d 879, 881 (2d Dep't 2008) (affirming summary judgment for the insurer and holding plaintiff failed "to make a prima facie showing that he main......
  • Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nason
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 10 Noviembre 2011
    ...696, 751 N.E.2d 944; Walburn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 215 A.D.2d 837, 626 N.Y.S.2d 315; cf. Korson v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 55 A.D.3d 879, 880–881, 866 N.Y.S.2d 338), and defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557......
  • Vincel v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 17 Febrero 2016
    ...policy (see Dean v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 19 N.Y.3d 704, 708, 955 N.Y.S.2d 817, 979 N.E.2d 1143 ; Korson v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 55 A.D.3d 879, 880–881, 866 N.Y.S.2d 338 ; Auerbach v. Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 36 A.D.3d 840, 841–842, 829 N.Y.S.2d 195 ; Foley v. Foley, 158 A.D.2d 666,......
  • Kleiner v. County of Orange
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 28 Octubre 2008

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT