DOWNIE v. JILES (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered April 14, 2023, which granted third-party defendants’ motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the third-party complaint.  As this Court found in (State Farm & Cas. Co. v. Guzman, 138 A.D.3d 503, 28 N.Y.S.3d 310 [1st Dept. 2016], lv dismissed and denied 28 N.Y.3d 1101, 45 N.Y.S.3d 362, 68 N.E.3d 89 [2016]), involving similar policy language, “[i]t is undisputed that the named insured under the homeowner's policy ․ did not reside at the subject premises.  Accordingly, under the terms of the policy, the subject premises was not covered” (id. at 503, 28 N.Y.S.3d 310).

It is not dispositive whether defendant Kareem Jiles qualifies as an insured person under the policy.  The policy defines “Insured premises” to include the “residence premises,” which includes the “dwelling,” which includes the “structure[ ] identified as the insured property on the Policy Declarations[ ] where you reside.”  “You” refers to “the person named ․ as the insured,” and Kareem Jiles is not a named insured.  The “Insured premises” also includes “any premises used by an insured person in connection with the residence premises,” but the property was not used in connection with the “residence premises” in this case (cf.  McLaughlin v. Midrox Ins. Co., 70 A.D.3d 1463, 894 N.Y.S.2d 648 [4th Dept. 2010]).

In view of the foregoing, the parties’ remaining arguments are academic.