Opinion
2012-01-26
In re Esteban RIVERA, et al., Petitioners–Appellants, v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent–Respondent.
Shapiro Law Offices, PLLC, Bronx (Ernest S. Buonocore of counsel), for appellants. Miranda Sambursky Slone Sklarin Verveniotis, LLP, Elmsford (Richard S. Sklarin of counsel), for respondent.
Shapiro Law Offices, PLLC, Bronx (Ernest S. Buonocore of counsel), for appellants. Miranda Sambursky Slone Sklarin Verveniotis, LLP, Elmsford (Richard S. Sklarin of counsel), for respondent.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SAXE, ACOSTA, ROMÁN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered March 21, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, determined that petitioners were entitled to recover a total of $100,000 under their insurance policy's supplemental underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage provisions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In Butler v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 274 A.D.2d 924, 711 N.Y.S.2d 607 [2000], the Third Department held that whether the term “insured,” as used in an identical Condition 6 of the SUM Endorsement, “refers to each independent insured” or “a cumulative grouping of all who qualify as insureds” was ambiguous, and should be construed against the insurer ( id. at 925–26, 711 N.Y.S.2d 607). However, in this case, Condition 6 cannot be viewed as ambiguous because such provision refers to “[t]he SUM limit shown on the Declarations,” and the Declarations clearly set forth a “per accident” limit ( see Matter of Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Ray, 51 A.D.3d 788, 790, 858 N.Y.S.2d 288 [2008]; Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Young, 39 A.D.3d 751, 752–53, 835 N.Y.S.2d 283 [2007]; Matter of Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. [Dunham], 303 A.D.2d 1038, 1038–39, 757 N.Y.S.2d 204 [2003] ). Petitioners' piecemeal view of Condition 6 runs afoul of the principle that “[w]hen interpreting a contract, we must consider the entire writing and not view particular words in isolation” ( Wachter v. Kim, 82 A.D.3d 658, 661, 920 N.Y.S.2d 66 [2011] ).