From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reynolds v. Standard Fire Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 27, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the branch of the plaintiffs' cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the homeowner's insurance policy is denied, the defendant's motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The homeowner's insurance policy in the instant case contained an exclusion for "loss resulting directly or indirectly from: * * * water damage" (emphasis added), except in situations of, inter alia, "[d]irect loss by * * * explosion * * * resulting from water damage". The Supreme Court found that the water damage exclusion did not preclude coverage because the plaintiffs' losses were caused primarily by oil damage and secondarily by water damage. We disagree.

It is well settled that where the provisions of an insurance contract are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their plain meaning (see, Goldman Sons v Hanover Ins. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 986; Commissioners of State Ins. Fund v Insurance Co., 80 N.Y.2d 992). Here, two theories were advanced as to how the plaintiffs' losses occurred. According to one theory, water flooded the basement of the plaintiffs' house, lifted their fuel oil tank from the floor, and broke the oil supply line, causing oil to escape through the broken supply line into the basement. According to the other theory, water flooded the plaintiffs' basement, entered the vent pipe of the fuel oil tank, and displaced the oil in the tank, causing oil to escape into the basement. Under either theory, the plaintiffs' losses due to oil damage were caused indirectly by water. Thus, given the clear and unambiguous exclusion contained in the homeowner's insurance policy for loss resulting directly or indirectly from water damage, coverage was precluded. Furthermore, none of the explanations offered by the plaintiffs as to how the damage occurred establish that the loss was caused by an explosion. Joy, J.P., Hart, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Reynolds v. Standard Fire Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 27, 1995
221 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Reynolds v. Standard Fire Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL REYNOLDS et al., Respondents, v. STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY…

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

Date published: Nov 27, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
634 N.Y.S.2d 163

Citing Cases

Jahier v. Liberty Mutual Group

In this case, the Supreme Court erred in denying Liberty's motion for summary judgment and in granting the…

Sephardic Lebanese Congregation v. Travelers Indem. Co.

Travelers also cited a series of other jurisdictional (non-New York) cases that clearly stand for the…