From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kinsman v. Royal Indemnity Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 2, 1998
254 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 2, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Summary Judgment.

Present — Denman, P. J., Pine, Hayes, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant established its initial entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting proof in admissible form that plaintiff failed to comply with a condition precedent under the underinsured motorist's coverage of the insurance policy ( see, Sulner v. G.A. Ins. Co., 224 A.D.2d 205, 205-206, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 805; see also, Oppenheimer Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon Co., 86 N.Y.2d 685, 688, 690-691). Plaintiff, however, raised an issue of fact whether defendant waived the condition precedent ( cf., Sulner v. G.A. Ins. Co., supra, at 206).


Summaries of

Kinsman v. Royal Indemnity Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 2, 1998
254 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Kinsman v. Royal Indemnity Company

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM KINSMAN, JR., Respondent, v. ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
678 N.Y.S.2d 543

Citing Cases

Macquesten General Contracting, Inc. v. HCE, Inc.

MacQuesten has failed to meet this standard. As the cases cited by MacQuesten indicate, even if submission of…