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.
KENNEL DELITES, INC., doing business as American Kennels, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. T.L.S. NYC REAL ESTATE, LLC, et al., Defendants, St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered on or about June 26, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and denied defendant insurer's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, plaintiff's motion denied, defendant insurer's cross motion granted only to the extent of dismissing that portion of plaintiff's claim for recovery under its policy for interior property damage and business income losses, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Defendant Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company, initially identified incorrectly as St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company, issued a policy to plaintiff with a limitation of coverage, known as a rain exclusion, which barred recovery for interior property damage and business income losses “caused by,” among other things, rain. This rain exclusion applies to the loss at issue, namely, water damage from a rainstorm. Although plaintiff contends that the water damage to its interior was due to debris and mortar that fell from a neighboring building, which then clogged its roof drain, causing the rainwater to accumulate on its roof and later enter the building, the “efficient physical cause” was the rainwater itself (cf. Home Ins. Co. v. American Ins. Co., 147 A.D.2d 353, 537 N.Y.S.2d 516 [1989] ). A reasonable business person would conclude in this case that the interior property was damaged by rainwater from the previous evening's storm, and would look no further for alternate causes (see Album Realty Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 1008, 592 N.Y.S.2d 657, 607 N.E.2d 804 [1992] ). The claim as it might apply to roof damage should proceed.
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: March 06, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)