Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Charles V. SARDINA and Kathleen Sardina, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, GMAC Mortgage Corporation of PA, a/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant GMAC Mortgage Corporation of PA, a/k/a GMAC Mortgage Corporation (GMAC), for summary judgment seeking, inter alia, the amount of $437,935.50, the outstanding balance of its home equity line of credit, plus interest, from defendant Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers). GMAC provided for refinancing of plaintiffs' home by way of two mortgages, i.e., a $200,000 mortgage and a $351,200 home equity line of credit. Travelers insured plaintiffs' home for fire loss but the Travelers policy listed GMAC as the mortgagee under one mortgage loan number. Following a fire loss, Travelers refused to pay plaintiffs' claim under the policy and paid GMAC as mortgagee for the one mortgage listed on the policy. GMAC met its initial burden by establishing that it is entitled to payment for both mortgages pursuant to the specific language of the policy (see, State of New York v. Home Indem. Co., 66 N.Y.2d 669, 671, 495 N.Y.S.2d 969, 486 N.E.2d 827), and plaintiffs failed to raise a material question of fact. In any event, if there is an ambiguity in the policy language, it must be resolved against Travelers, the insurer that drafted the policy (see, State of New York v. Home Indem. Co., supra, at 671, 495 N.Y.S.2d 969, 486 N.E.2d 827; see also, Breed v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 46 N.Y.2d 351, 353, 413 N.Y.S.2d 352, 385 N.E.2d 1280; Lipton, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 34 N.Y.2d 356, 361, 357 N.Y.S.2d 705, 314 N.E.2d 37). We therefore grant GMAC's motion for summary judgment and order that judgment be entered in favor of GMAC against Travelers in the amount of $437,935.50 plus per diem interest of $92.82 commencing March 17, 1998.
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and judgment ordered.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 07, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)