Cf. Smith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 231 So.2d 193, 194 (Fla. 1970) (holding that insurance contract covered loss but limiting, according to the express terms of the policy, insurer's liability to reimbursement for temporary loss of use of the vehicle instead of the full purchase price of the vehicle). But see Cueto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 544 A.2d 906, 909 (N.J.Super.Ct. Law Div. 1987) (granting summary judgment for insurance company where policy only covered losses "to" and not "of" a vehicle); Sauer v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 423 N.Y.S.2d 138, 139 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1979) (deciding, without reprinting the disputed policy terms, that "[s]uch a repossession [by the true owner] . . . is not covered by the insurance policy written by defendant"). When presented with policy language almost identical to the language in "Coverage S" of the Policy in this case, the Michigan Court of Appeals found in favor of the insured, reasoning, "The inclusive language implied that coverage would be granted in every case of damage to, or loss of, the vehicle except collision."
Plaintiff appeals from an order of Erie County Court affirming a judgment (denominated order) of Buffalo City Court granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There is no merit to plaintiff's contention that the seizure and impounding of the vehicle by the Sheriff constituted a "theft" within the comprehensive loss provisions of the policy ( cf., Castner v. Insurance Co., 40 A.D.2d 1, 3-4; Sauer v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 102 Misc.2d 243, 245; see generally, Annotation, What Constitutes Theft Within Automobile Theft Insurance Policy — Modern Cases, 67 ALR 4th 82). In interpreting those provisions, we give effect to the ordinary definition of theft ( see, Block v. Standard Ins. Co., 292 N.Y. 270, 274) and are guided by what would be the reasonable expectations and purpose of an ordinary business person in making such a contract ( see, Bolling v. Northern Ins. Co., 253 App. Div. 693, 694-695, affd 280 N.Y. 510).
Plaintiff appeals from an order of Erie County Court affirming a judgment (denominated order) of Buffalo City Court granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. There is no merit to plaintiff's contention that the seizure and impounding of the vehicle by the Sheriff constituted a "theft" within the comprehensive loss provisions of the policy ( cf., Castner v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 40 A.D.2d 1, 3-4; Sauer v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 102 Misc.2d 243, 245; see generally, Annotation, What Constitutes Theft Within Automobile Theft Insurance Policy — Modern Cases, 67 ALR4th 82). In interpreting those provisions, we give effect to the ordinary definition of theft ( see, Block v. Standard Ins. Co., 292 N.Y. 270, 274) and are guided by what would be the reasonable expectations and purpose of an ordinary businessperson in making such a contract ( see, Bolling v. Northern Ins. Co., 253 App. Div. 693. 694-695, affd 280 N.Y. 510)