Wrigley v. Potomac Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 July 1986
• Citation: 122 A.D.2d 361,504 N.Y.S.2d 324
• Parties: May D. WRIGLEY et al., Plaintiffs, and Keith P. Wrigley et al., Respondents, v. POTOMAC INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 324

504 N.Y.S.2d 324

122 A.D.2d 361

May D. WRIGLEY et al., Plaintiffs and Keith P. Wrigley et al., Respondents, v. POTOMAC INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Department.

July 10, 1986.

Bouck, Holloway, Kiernan & Casey (Michael Jon Longstreet of counsel), Albany, for appellant.

Winn & Winn (John R. Winn of counsel), Granville, for respondents.

Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, CASEY, MIKOLL and LEVINE, JJ.

LEVINE, Justice.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Ford, J.), entered October 15, 1985 in Washington County, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs May D. Wrigley and C. Davis Wrigley, residents of Fort Edward, New York, and Pasadena, California, respectively, co-owned a house located in the Town of Lake George, Warren County, and were named insureds on a homeowners policy with defendant which covered the premises as a secondary dwelling. Plaintiffs Keith P. Wrigley and Susan Wrigley were the primary residents of the house and May and Davis each stayed there approximately 2 to 7 days per year. When a fire destroyed the house, defendant compensated May and Davis for their losses occasioned thereby but refused to indemnify Keith and Susan for the value of personalty owned and used by them in their occupancy of the house. Plaintiffs then commenced an action seeking recovery under the homeowners policy for Keith and Susan's losses. In its answer, defendant alleged as an affirmative defense that Keith and Susan were not insured under the policy. It then brought on the instant motion for summary judgment. Special Term denied the motion and this appeal by defendant ensued. We now affirm.

In contending that Keith and Susan were not insured under the subject policy, defendant relies upon the clause therein defining insureds as the named insureds and "if residents of the named insureds' household * * * relatives of either". It is not disputed that Keith and Susan were related to May and Davis. However, since neither May nor Davis resided at the Lake George property, defendant claims that Keith and Susan were not, as a matter of law, members of their household. Specifically, defendant maintains that the insurance clause in question is free from ambiguity and that the term "household" should thus be given its ordinary meaning, to wit, "a family living together * * * [t]hose who dwell under the same roof and compose a family" (Black's Law Dictionary 666 [5th ed] ). This would imply that Keith and Susan must have lived at either of the primary residences of the named insureds in order to have been covered. However, the term household has rarely been given the restrictive, exclusive definition urged by defendant (see, Appleton v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 16 A.D.2d 361, 363-366, 228 N.Y.S.2d 442, Who is "Resident" or "Member" of Same "Household" or "Family" as Named Insured, Within Liability Insurance Provision Defining Additional Insureds, Ann., 93 A.L.R.3d 420 [and cases cited therein] ). To the contrary, it is considered to be an ambiguous term (see, Hollander v....