SANGINITO v. NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (2008)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

John SANGINITO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: June 10, 2008

LIPPMAN, P.J., WILLIAMS, MOSKOWITZ, ACOSTA, JJ.

Litchfield Cavo LLP, New York (Vincent J. Velardo of counsel), for appellants. Law Office of Eric N. Wolpin, New York (Thomas G. Connolly of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered August 30, 2007, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

To negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretations, and applies in the particular case (Continental Cas. Co. v. Rapid-Am. Corp., 80 N.Y.2d 640, 652, 593 N.Y.S.2d 966, 609 N.E.2d 506 [1993] ).

We agree with the motion court that the exclusion is not clear and unambiguous. Further, there are unresolved questions of fact remaining as to whether or not the business purpose of and work performed by plaintiffs excluded them from coverage under the policy.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network