Roselli v. Royal Ins. Co. of America
| Decision Date | 16 February 1989 |
| Citation | 142 Misc.2d 857,538 N.Y.S.2d 898 |
| Parties | Connie R. ROSELLI, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Mangione, Gianforti & Roisman (Gary Gianforti, Rochester, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield (Gary M. Levine, Rochester, of counsel), for defendant.
On March 24, 1988 a deer entered plaintiff's apartment and caused considerable damage to the contents.
There is no question that on that date plaintiff was insured by a homeowner's policy issued by defendant. It is also undisputed that this policy covered damage to personal property caused by vandalism or malicious mischief.
Defendant insurer has disclaimed liability on the grounds that the loss sustained does not constitute a covered loss. More specifically, defendant contends that a deer is not capable of an intentional or a malicious act and therefore the damages sustained by plaintiff were not the result of any vandalism or malicious mischief within the meaning of the policy.
Defendant now moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment in her favor.
The policy in question quite succinctly and unambiguously states in "SECTION I--PERILS INSURED AGAINST" that coverage extends to "direct physical loss" of personal property "caused by a peril listed below". This language is followed by an enumerated list which includes
Although, as plaintiff's attorney suggests, modern dictionary definitions of vandalism include the "ignorant" destruction of property (see e.g., Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2d ed. [1987] ), even expanded, popular definitions require the destruction to be "in conscious or intentional disregard of the rights of another" (King v. North River Insurance Co., 278 S.Ct. 411, 413, 297 S.E.2d 637, 638).
Likewise, the definition of malicious mischief, even broadly read, presupposes an intentional act. Thus it is said:
(Romanych v. Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Co., Ltd., 8 Misc.2d 269, 272, 167 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Georgitsi Realty, LLC v. Penn–Star Ins. Co.
...or from the nature of the act itself. Cresthill, 53 A.D.2d at 498, 385 N.Y.S.2d 797;see also Roselli v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 142 Misc.2d 857, 538 N.Y.S.2d 898, 899 (Sup.Ct.1989) (“Malice does not necessarily mean hatred. It may be inferred from unjustifiable conduct. In a legal sense, it ......
-
Kimball v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
... ROSS KIMBALL and LAUREN KIMBALL Plaintiffs, v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. Civil Action No. 21-cv-02201-REB-SKC United States District Court, D. Colorado April ... as written, Chacon , 788 P.2d at 750; Kane v ... Royal Insurance Co. of America , 768 P.2d 678, 680 (Colo ... 1989), and strained constructions ... conduct.” Id. at 836-37. See also Roselli ... v. Royal Insurance Co. of America , 538 N.Y.S.2d 898, 899 ... (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989) ... ...
-
Capital Flip, LLC v. Am. Modern Select Ins. Co.
...without knowledge of right or wrong as defined by man." Stack , 57 Ala. App. At 506, 329 So.2d 561.In Roselli v. Royal Insurance Co. , 142 Misc.2d 857, 538 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Sur. Ct., Monroe County, 1989), the court granted summary judgment in favor of an insurer on the insured's claim tha......
-
Montgomery v. United Services Auto. Ass'n
...by the few decisions which have confronted this issue and the lack of any authority to the contrary. In Roselli v. Royal Insurance Co., 142 Misc.2d 857, 538 N.Y.S.2d 898 (1989), an apartment was damaged by a deer. The homeowner's policy insured personal property against damage by " '[v]anda......