Ruge v. Utica First Insurance Company
Decision Date | 08 August 2006 |
Docket Number | 2005-07873. |
Citation | 819 N.Y.S.2d 564,2006 NY Slip Op 06155,32 A.D.3d 424 |
Parties | DOUGLAS R. RUGE, as Administrator of the Estate of MARY K. RUGE, Deceased, Appellant, v. UTICA FIRST INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
On May 14, 2001, the plaintiff's decedent, Mary K. Ruge, while driving a school bus, was involved in an automobile accident with a van. The van was owned by Nestor Galarza, who used it in his heating and cooling business, the defendant Heavens Heating and Cooling Corp. (hereinafter HHACC). At the time of the accident, the van, which was driven by Galarza's brother, was carrying piping material in a roof rack affixed to the top of the van. When the vehicles collided, the pipes dislodged and pierced the window of the bus, striking Ruge in the head. Both drivers were killed as a result of injuries sustained in the accident.
The plaintiff sought coverage for the injuries sustained in the accident from HHACC's insurer, the defendant Utica First Insurance Company (hereinafter Utica), under a contractor's insurance policy Utica issued to HHACC. The policy contained an automobile exclusion which stated that the insurer was not obligated to "pay for bodily injury, property damage, personal injury or advertising injury that arises out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, occupancy, renting, loaning entrusting, supervision, loading or unloading of . . . an auto" (hereinafter the auto exclusion).
While an ambiguity in an exclusionary clause in an insurance policy must be construed most strongly against the insurer (see Ace Wire & Cable Co. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 60 NY2d 390, 398 [1983]; Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 34 NY2d 356, 361 [1974]), an unambiguous policy provision must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning (see Sanabria v American Home Assur. Co., 68 NY2d 866, 868 [1986]; United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v Annunziata, 67 NY2d 229, 230 [1986]). We find no ambiguity as to the plain and ordinary meaning of the auto exclusion at bar. Thus, Utica established, prima facie, that the auto exclusion in the policy precluded coverage for the subject...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chimbay v. Avalonbay Communities Inc.
...with another.” Transp. Ins. Co. v. AARK Constr. Group, 526 F.Supp.2d 350, 356 (E.D.N.Y.2007) ( quoting Ruge v. Utica First Ins. Co., 32 A.D.3d 424, 426, 819 N.Y.S.2d 564 (2d Dep't 2006); see also Zandri Constr. Co. v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 81 A.D.2d 106, 440 N.Y.S.2d 353, 356 (3d Dep't 1981),......
-
Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Scott
...1220, 1230–31 (D. Haw. 2010), aff'd, 490 F. App'x 49 (9th Cir. 2012), which in turn discusses Keillor )); Ruge v. Utica First Ins. Co., 32 A.D.3d 424, 819 N.Y.S.2d 564, 564–66 (2006) (finding that an automobile exclusion, which excluded coverage "for bodily injury, property damage, personal......
-
Gem-Quality Corp. v. Colony Ins. Co.
...A.D.2d 956, 956, 708 N.Y.S.2d 210 ; see Catucci v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 37 A.D.3d 513, 514, 830 N.Y.S.2d 281 ; Ruge v. Utica First Ins. Co., 32 A.D.3d 424, 426, 819 N.Y.S.2d 564 ; Kay Bee Bldrs., Inc. v. Merchant's Mut. Ins. Co., 10 A.D.3d 631, 632, 781 N.Y.S.2d 692 ; Garson Mgt. Co. v. Trav......
-
Soho Plaza Corp. v. Birnbaum
...457 N.E.2d 761;Howard & Norman Baker, Ltd. v. American Safety Cas. Ins. Co., 75 A.D.3d at 534, 904 N.Y.S.2d 770;Ruge v. Utica First Ins. Co., 32 A.D.3d 424, 426, 819 N.Y.S.2d 564). However, the plain meaning of a policy's language may not be disregarded to find an ambiguity where none exist......