Salta Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Elegnelle Realty Corp.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1959 |
| Citation | 183 N.Y.S.2d 781,16 Misc.2d 198 |
| Parties | SALTA KNITTING MILLS INC., Plaintiffs, v. ELEGNELLE REALTY CORP., M. & S. Management Corp. and Security Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Edward W. Springsteen, New York City, for plaintiff Salta Knitting mills, inc.
Tashof and Sobler, New York City, for defendants Elegnelle Realty Corp. and M. & S. Management Corp.
Tropp & Steinbock, New York City, for defendant Security Mut. Ins. Co.
This is an action for a declaratory judgment. An action for damages which had been pending in the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, First District was, by prior order of this court, transferred and consolidated with it. The facts are not in dispute. During a rainstorm, the drain on the roof of the building which led directly down to a waste pipe in the interior of the building owned by defendant Elegnelle Realty Corp., and leased to M. & S. Management Corp., became unworkable, by reason of the fact that there was a screen covering said drain which became clogged by debris. As a result thereof, water accumulated on the roof and eventually arose to a point where it ran down the stairway to the roof. The water entered the premises leased by the plaintiff Salta Knitting Mills, Inc. and caused water damage to the merchandise therein in the stipulated amount of $1,750. Salta commenced a suit in the Municipal Court against Elegnelle. The latter had a Comprehensive General Liability Policy with the defendant insurance company. The summons and oral complaint was forwarded to the insurance company, which returned it and refused to defend or pay on the ground that the loss sustained was excluded from the policy. Thereafter it instituted this action for a declaratory judgment, and the consolidation ensued.
The policy with which we are concerned provides in the insuring agreement that the company agrees in Coverage B--Property Damage Liability: 'To pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including the loss of use thereof, caused by accident.' Under Exclusions, there is contained, 'This policy does not apply: * * * (e) under coverage B, except with respect to liability assumed under the contract covered by this policy and except insofar as this exclusion is stated in the declarations to be inapplicable, to * * * (3) rain or snow admitted directly to the building interior through defective roofs, leaders or spouting, or open or defective doors, windows, skylights, transoms or ventilations, insofar as any of these occur on or from the premises owned or rented by the named insured and injure or destroy buildings or contents thereof.'
The defendant insurance company asserts that research has failed to disclose any cases in this jurisdiction construing this specific language in a policy of insurance, the codefendants have failed to cite any cases in support of their construction of the language, and independent research by the court has been fruitless. Accordingly, this matter will have to be disposed of on the principles of construction heretofore decided by the courts of this State.
If the terms of an insurance contract and the exclusion clauses are clear and unambiguous, they must be read in the ordinary sense which will preclude any interpretation by the court; however, if ambiguity is present it must be construed in favor of the insured and against the insurer (Hartol Products Corporation v. Prudential Ins. Co. of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirchoff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...policy of insurance should be given the meaning most favorable to the insured. It is stated in the case of Salta Knitting Mills, Inc., v. Elegnelle Realty Corp., 16 Misc.2d 198, on pages 200-201, 183 N.Y.S.2d 781, on page 784: 'Where reasonable * * * men on reading the terms of an ambiguous......