SUSAN RANER, plf-ap, v. SECURITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, def-res, E. PATRICIA DOLAN, def

8999. SUSAN RANER, plf-ap, v. SECURITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, def-res, E. PATRICIA DOLAN, def — Hill & Moin LLP, New York (Cheryl Eisberg Moin of counsel), for ap — Lawrence N. Rogak, LLC, Oceanside (Lawrence N. Rogak of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered June 8, 2011, which, in this action for a declaratory judgment, granted defendant Security Mutual Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment and declared that Security Mutual was not obligated to indemnify its insured in the underlying personal injury action or pay the judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the declaration vacated.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8999. SUSAN RANER, plf-ap, v. SECURITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, def-res, E. PATRICIA DOLAN, def — Hill & Moin LLP, New York (Cheryl Eisberg Moin of counsel), for ap — Lawrence N. Rogak, LLC, Oceanside (Lawrence N. Rogak of counsel), for res — Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered June 8, 2011, which, in this action for a declaratory judgment, granted defendant Security Mutual Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment and declared that Security Mutual was not obligated to indemnify its insured in the underlying personal injury action or pay the judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the declaration vacated.

The policy exclusion relied upon by defendant insurer, which, with respect to coverage for personal liability and medical payments to others, specifically excludes “liability… resulting from premises owned, rented or controlled by an insured other than the insured premises” is ambiguous because the definition of insured premises under the subject policy includes “that part of any premises occasionally rented to an insured for other than business purposes” and the policy offers no definition of the term “occasionally.” Thus, the term “occasionally rented” is ambiguous and may apply to a summer vacation rental such as the one at issue here — a beach club cabana rented for 20 successive years, albeit under separate yearly membership agreements (see Villanueva v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 48 AD3d 1015, 1016-18 [3d Dept 2008]). Since the defendant insurer failed to establish that its interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation, or in fact the insurer’s intended interpretation, the exclusion must be construed against the drafter and in favor of the insurer (see Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Wesolowski, 33 NY2d 169, 172 [1973]).

SUSAN RANER, plf-ap, v. SECURITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, def-res, E. PATRICIA DOLAN, def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal