From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Simon v. Colonial States Brokerage Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1987
128 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

March 9, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The terms of the written policy of insurance embody the entire agreement between the parties and the insured is bound by those terms (see, Metzger v. Aetna Ins. Co., 227 N.Y. 411; American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Salvatore, 102 A.D.2d 342). "Contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to the sense and meaning of the terms which the parties have used, and if they are clear and unambiguous the terms are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and proper sense" (Johnson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 269 N.Y. 401, 408).

At bar, the insurance policy consists of the three-page "declarations page" read in conjunction with the "Policy Booklet". By virtue of the declarations page, it is clear that the plaintiff was never afforded "OPTION IV" coverage, which offers coverage for burglary, robbery or other types of theft. Moreover, the "theft exclusion endorsement" which, by its terms, excludes all types of theft (including burglary and robbery) from coverage, is clearly the operative provision, and, therefore, the burglary loss sustained by the plaintiff in his video store is not covered by the insurance policy.

Before the rules governing the construction of ambiguous contracts are triggered, the court must find ambiguity in the policy (see, Breed v. Insurance Co., 46 N.Y.2d 351). In short, the instant policy clearly defines the term "theft", and expressly sets forth the exclusion as it applies to the plaintiff. Thus, an interpretation of the policy must be resolved in the defendant's favor. The plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to the insurance coverage and therefor the defendant is entitled to summary judgment (see, Alvord Swift v. Muller Constr. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 276). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Simon v. Colonial States Brokerage Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 1987
128 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Simon v. Colonial States Brokerage Corp.

Case Details

Full title:SALVATORE SIMON, Doing Business as HOLLYWOOD'S FINEST VIDEO, Respondent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 9, 1987

Citations

128 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Transamerica Ins. Fin. v. Iron Eagle Con

th a premium based on payroll and that it did not provide such a policy ( see, Tucci v. Hartford Cas. Ins.…

Sterner v. Balcom

Said policy replaces any previous binder or oral representations made in negotiating the policy. (See,…