Final week I acquired a positive choice and order for considered one of my insurer shoppers from america District Courtroom for the Southern District of New York in a number-of-families owners coverage utility misrepresentation case. My consumer had denied protection for the Brooklyn, NY hearth loss primarily based, partially, on the appliance misrepresentation however didn’t rescind the owners coverage (that is a factor). I performed the policyholder’s EUO and defended the policyholder’s subsequent breach of contract motion.
The Resolution & Order begins:
The fabric details, which can’t be disputed, are easy: In his insurance coverage utility, plaintiff said that his property had three models, with three households residing in them. The coverage that Nationwide issued to him coated “one, two, three or four-family” dwellings. In actual fact, plaintiff’s constructing had no less than six models, rented to unrelated tenants. After the fireplace, Nationwide found the extra models and denied protection. As defined under, Nationwide was entitled to take action and consequently will likely be granted abstract judgment.
And provides:
Plaintiff contends that the language of the Coverage is ambiguous, stopping the Courtroom from granting abstract judgment. * * * He argues that as a result of the Coverage makes use of the time period “one, two, three, or 4 household dwelling” fairly than “one, two, three, or 4 unit constructing,” it’s irrelevant that there have been no less than six separate residential models within the Topic Premises. ***Neither logic nor precedent helps plaintiff’s hair-splitting argument. On the contrary: the New York courts have repeatedly defined that phrases like “4 household dwelling” are unambiguous.
