Shah v. CAMBRIDGE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
| Decision Date | 28 April 2003 |
| Citation | 304 A.D.2d 815,757 N.Y.S.2d 870 |
| Parties | BHARAT SHAH et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>CAMBRIDGE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, and<BR>WILLIAM J. CHABINA CO., INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and, upon reargument, the order entered April 4, 2002, is vacated, the motion for summary judgment is granted, the complaint and all cross claim are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
This action was commenced, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance policy issued by the appellant, Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The policy covered the plaintiffs' losses resulting from a fire that occurred on February 14, 1998, at their residence. The appellant paid the plaintiffs $53,500 to cover their losses. On May 22, 2000, the appellant refused to make any further payments because the plaintiffs had violated the appraisal procedure mandated by the policy.
This action seeks recovery of the additional money that the plaintiffs alleged is owing under the terms of the policy. The appellant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the action was barred by the two-year contractual time limitation contained in an endorsement to the policy. The endorsement expressly replaced a provision in the body of the policy which required the insured to bring an action within one year after the date of the loss. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding an ambiguity as to the parties' intent with respect to the contractual time limitation. The Supreme Court held that by striking the one year provision from the policy a question of fact existed as to whether the parties intended for any time limitation period to apply.
The appellant moved for reargument which the Supreme Court granted but, upon reargument, adhered to its denial of summary judgment. We reverse.
"[I]n construing an endorsement to an insurance policy, the endorsement and the policy must be read together, and the words of the policy remain in full force and effect except as altered by the words of the endorsement * * * An insurance contract should not be read so that some provisions are rendered meaningless" (County of Columbia v Continental Ins. Co., 83 NY2d 618, 628 [1994]; see Jefferson Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Travelers Indem. Co., 92 NY2d 363, 370 [1998]; Hamilton v Khalife, 289...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AIX Special TY Ins. Co. v. Steel FAB NY, Inc.
...should not be read so that some provisions are rendered meaningless" (Shah v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 304 A.D.2d 815, 816, 757 N.Y.S.2d 870 [internal quotation omitted]; see Richner Communications, Inc. v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 72 A.D.3d at 671; 898 N.Y.S.2d 615). The Court in Allst......
-
D'Angelo v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...695 ; see Vaccaro v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 116 A.D.3d 839, 840, 983 N.Y.S.2d 436 ; Shah v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 304 A.D.2d 815, 816, 757 N.Y.S.2d 870 ; cf. McGowan v. Great N. Ins. Co., 105 A.D.3d 714, 715, 962 N.Y.S.2d 638 ). Here, Allstate made a prima facie showing ......
-
L&D Serv. Station, Inc. v. Utica First Ins. Co.
...... An insurance contract should not be read so that some provisions are rendered meaningless” ( Shah v. Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 304 A.D.2d 815, 816, 757 N.Y.S.2d 870 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Richner Communications, Inc. v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 72 A.D.3d at 671, 898 ......
-
Sanford v. Jonathan Woodner Co.
... ... concrete platform at the top of an exterior "fire exit" staircase outside her classroom collapsed ... Evbo's indemnification obligation to insurance proceeds. Accordingly, the indemnification clause ... ...