ROBERTS v. NEW YORK PROPERTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Linwood ROBERTS, Appellant, v. NEW YORK PROPERTY INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

Decided: September 21, 1998

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and RITTER, COPERTINO and FLORIO, JJ. Lazarowitz & Manganillo, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Ira F. Seplow of counsel), for appellant. Abrams & Martin, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Daniel J. Friedman and Mary Y.J. Kim of counsel), for respondent.

In an action to recover the proceeds of a property insurance policy following a fire loss, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated August 15, 1997, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The insurance policy at issue provides that any action against the insurer must be commenced within two years after the date of loss.   There is no merit to the plaintiff's contention that the words “date of loss” appearing in his policy are ambiguous (see, Costello v. Allstate Ins. Co., 230 A.D.2d 763, 646 N.Y.S.2d 695).   The phrase has been held to refer to the date of the catastrophe insured against, and not the date of the completion of the process to determine the loss (see, Costello v. Allstate Ins. Co., supra).  Accordingly, the plaintiff's action, which was commenced more than 24 months after the fire on his premises, was properly dismissed as time-barred.

The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Copied to clipboard