Soundview Associates v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 May 1995 |
| Citation | 215 A.D.2d 370,625 N.Y.S.2d 659 |
| Parties | SOUNDVIEW ASSOCIATES, etc., Appellant, v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. Stanton Pohl, Westhampton Beach, for appellant.
Mound, Cotton & Wollan, New York City (Fredric R. Mindlin and Mark J. Weber, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BALLETTA, J.P., and RITTER, ALTMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff's loss is covered by an insurance policy issued by the defendant, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.), dated July 22, 1993, which granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff, which owns and operates a golf course located in Baiting Hollow, New York, purchased a commercial, general liability insurance policy from the defendant for the period from November 15, 1990, to November 15, 1991. On June 10, 1991, the pumps that pumped water through the golf course's underground sprinkler system were damaged by lightning, and sand and silt entered the sprinkler system, rendering it inoperable. Without a working sprinkler system, the plaintiff's golf course sustained damage to its tees, fairways, and greens. The plaintiff submitted a claim for the damages to the defendant insurance company. The defendant denied those portions of the plaintiff's claim that were for the damage to the underground sprinkler system and to the tees, fairways, and greens. The plaintiff then commenced this declaratory judgment action.
It is well settled that, whenever an ambiguity is found in the provisions of an insurance policy, any doubt about the existence of insurance coverage should be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurance carrier (see, Lavanant v. General Acc. Ins. Co. of Am., 79 N.Y.2d 623, 584 N.Y.S.2d 744, 595 N.E.2d 819). However, when the provisions are clear and unambiguous, "the courts should not strain to superimpose an unnatural or unreasonable construction" (Goldman & Sons, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 986, 987, 592 N.Y.S.2d 645, 607 N.E.2d 792). Moreover, they should not "construe a clause in a way that drains it of its only intended meaning" (Commissioner of State Ins. Fund v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 80 N.Y.2d 992, 994, 592 N.Y.S.2d 648, 607 N.E.2d 795),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US UNDERWRITERS INS. v. CONGREGATION B'NAI
...insurance coverage should be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurance carrier." Soundview Assoc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., ___ A.D.2d ___, 625 N.Y.S.2d 659 (2d Dep't 1995). Moreover, when an insurer seeks to invoke an exclusionary clause in order to disclaim coverage, it ......
-
Minchala v. 829 Jefferson, LLC
...; United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Annunziata, 67 N.Y.2d 229, 232, 501 N.Y.S.2d 790, 492 N.E.2d 1206 ; Soundview Assoc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 215 A.D.2d 370, 370, 625 N.Y.S.2d 659 ). "However, the plain meaning of a policy's language may not be disregarded to find an ambiguity where n......
- Sher v. Pellicano
-
Monarch Cortland, Div. of Monarch Mach. Tool Co., Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co.
...at issue clearly establishes the parties' intent that the policy not cover preverdict interest (see, Soundview Assocs. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 215 A.D.2d 370, 625 N.Y.S.2d 659). Nor do we find any merit in plaintiff's claim that the amount of the final judgment in the personal injury act......