From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kassapidis v. Maryland Casualty Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 12, 1999
265 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted September 8, 1999

October 12, 1999

In an action to recover on an insurance contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.).


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that in construing an insurance policy, any ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurer ( see, United States Fid. Guar. Co. v. Annunziata, 67 N.Y.2d 229; Mazzuoccolo v. Cinelli, 245 A.D.2d 245). We agree with the Supreme Court that the "explosion" provision in the policy at issue is ambiguous as to whether it covers the plaintiffs loss. Since that ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability.

S. MILLER, J.P., THOMPSON, KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kassapidis v. Maryland Casualty Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 12, 1999
265 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Kassapidis v. Maryland Casualty Company

Case Details

Full title:ROXANNE KASSAPIDIS, respondent, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 12, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
696 N.Y.S.2d 512

Citing Cases

Castillo v. Prince Plaza, LLC

"In determining a dispute over insurance coverage, we first look to the language of the policy" (…

Castillo v. Prince Plaza, LLC

Thus, “[where] the existence of coverage depends entirely on the applicability of [an] exception to the…