Maurice Goldman & Sons, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1992 |
| Citation | 607 N.E.2d 792,80 N.Y.2d 986,592 N.Y.S.2d 645 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 607 N.E.2d 792, 22 A.L.R.5th 910 MAURICE GOLDMAN & SONS, INC., Appellant, v. HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon & Kaplan, New York City (Edward L. Sadowsky, of counsel), for appellant.
Abrams & Martin, P.C., New York City (Michael E. Gorelick and Martin I. Nagel, of counsel), for respondents.
The order of the Appellate Division, 179 A.D.2d 388, 578 N.Y.S.2d 551, should be affirmed, with costs.
During a business trip, plaintiff's president noticed that a bag containing jewelry was missing from his personal effects. He was unable to say how or where the loss occurred. Plaintiff thereafter submitted a claim to defendants, the issuers of its primary and excess "jewelers block" insurance policies. Defendants, however, disclaimed liability for the loss, relying on the clauses in their policies that excluded from coverage "[u]nexplained loss, mysterious disappearance or loss or shortage disclosed on taking inventory."
Plaintiff commenced the present action, arguing that the exclusionary clause on which defendants relied is ambiguous because it could be construed to apply only to losses discovered "on taking inventory" rather than to all mysterious and unexplained losses regardless of how such losses are discovered. Both courts below rejected plaintiff's argument and granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We now affirm.
Where the provisions of an insurance contract are clear and unambiguous, the courts should not strain to superimpose an unnatural or unreasonable construction (see, e.g., Government Empl. Ins. Co. v. Kligler, 42 N.Y.2d 863, 397 N.Y.S.2d 777, 366 N.E.2d 865; Ambassador Assocs. v. Corcoran, 79 N.Y.2d 871, 581 N.Y.S.2d 276, 589 N.E.2d 1258, affg 168 A.D.2d 281, 562 N.Y.S.2d 507). Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the clause in issue here is susceptible of only one interpretation. Each of the enumerated casualties, i.e., "[u]nexplained loss," "mysterious disappearance," and "loss or shortage discovered on taking inventory," is plainly an independent basis for exclusion. There is nothing in the grammar or syntax of the exclusionary clause to suggest that the phrase "discovered on taking inventory" was intended to modify each one. To the extent that the court reached a contrary conclusion in McCormick & Co. v. Empire Ins. Group Co., (2d Cir.), 878 F.2d 27, its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford Ins Co. of the Midwest v. Halt
...or uncertainty, the court should not "superimpose an unnatural or unreasonable construction" (Maurice Goldman & Sons v. Hanover Ins. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 986, 987, 592 N.Y.S.2d 645, 607 N.E.2d 792; see, Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Kligler, 42 N.Y.2d 863, 864, 397 N.Y.S.2d 777, 366 N.E.2d 865). ......
-
Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. (In re Madoff)
... ... 2018) (quoting ... Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha , 609 F.3d 30, ... 34-35 (2d ... justice.'" Picard v. Bureau of Labor Ins ... ( In re BLMIS ), 480 B.R. 501, 516 ... ( Id. ) (citing Maurice Goldman & Sons, Inc ... v. Hanover Ins ... ...
-
Incorporated Village of Cedarhurst v. Hanover Ins. Co.
...insurance policy provisions, including exclusions, according to their plain and ordinary meaning (Goldman & Sons v. Hanover Ins. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 986, 987, 592 N.Y.S.2d 645, 607 N.E.2d 792; United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Annunziata, 67 N.Y.2d 229, 232, 501 N.Y.S.2d 790, 492 N.E.2d By plain......
-
Tozzi v. Long Island R. Co.
...the courts should not strain to superimpose an unnatural or unreasonable construction" (Maurice Goldman & Sons, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 986, 987, 592 N.Y.S.2d 645, 607 N.E.2d 792; Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Insurance Co. of North America, 80 N.Y.2d 992, 592 N.Y.S.2......