BRODY v. CHENANGO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (1999)

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

Michael BRODY, et al., appellants, v. CHENANGO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent.

Decided: March 15, 1999

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN and ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.

Wilkofsky Friedman Karel & Cummins, New York, N.Y. (Herbert J. Marek of counsel), for appellants. Thomas M. Bona, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Anthony M. Napoli of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover under a fire insurance policy, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated March 24, 1998, as granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs contend that the defendant insurance company issued a temporary insurance binder to them on August 30, 1994, which was still in effect when their property was damaged by fire on November 12, 1994. However, the papers which the plaintiffs claim to have bound the defendant to provide temporary coverage did not specify the “effective date of coverage” (Insurance Law § 3404[h] ), or indicate its term or duration. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment upon the ground that the insurance application did not constitute an enforceable binder.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

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Out of date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!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law