From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Borczynski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 28, 1993
193 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 28, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Whelan, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Green, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We agree with respondent that the underinsured motorists coverage of petitioner's policy applies to the accident involving infant Jeffrey Borczynski. There is no express requirement in the policy that an insured must be an operator of, or a passenger in, an insured vehicle in order to obtain benefits under that coverage. The general purpose of that coverage is to provide personal protection against the possibility of an accident with an uninsured or underinsured motorist (see, Governor's Mem approving L 1977, ch 892, 1977 N.Y. Legis Ann, at 310).

"In addition to the foregoing measures designed to contain costs, the bill makes other important improvements in the no-fault law including * * * the creation of `supplementary uninsured motorist' coverage so that an individual can fully protect himself against the possibility of an accident with an underinsured motorist" (Governor's Mem approving L 1977, ch 892, 1977 N.Y. Legis Ann, at 311). To interpret the policy in the manner urged by petitioner would negate that purpose. If petitioner intended such a limitation, it should have stated so in clear language rather than relying upon an obscure passage under the subtitle, "Limits of Liability". That section deals with limitations on the amount of coverage to be afforded and does not deal with the issue of coverage itself. In order to sustain the construction of an exclusionary provision in a policy against the insured, the insurer has the burden of establishing that its construction or interpretation of the policy is the only construction that can be fairly placed thereon (see, Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 34 N.Y.2d 356; Allstate Ins. Co. v Klock Oil Co., 73 A.D.2d 486; Hollander v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 60 A.D.2d 380, lv denied 44 N.Y.2d 646; Milstein v Ortner, 36 A.D.2d 625). Petitioner has not met that burden.


Summaries of

Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Borczynski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
May 28, 1993
193 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Borczynski

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. JAMES…

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

Date published: May 28, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 407

Citing Cases

Jahier v. Liberty Mutual Group

Policy exclusions are not to be extended by interpretation or implication, but are to be accorded a strict…