Birnkrant v. Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford

206 A.D.3d 963

171 N.Y.S.3d 146

Mel BIRNKRANT, respondent,

v.AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT, appellant, et al., defendant.

2021–03344

Index No. 51895/19

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—June 6, 2022

June 29, 2022

Meg R. Reid, New York, NY, for appellant.

Basch & Keegan, LLP, Kingston, NY (Derek J. Spada of counsel), for respondent.

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, LARA J. GENOVESI, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendant Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hal B. Greenwald, J.), dated April 13, 2021. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and granted the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against, among others, the defendant Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut (hereinafter the insurer), to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract. The plaintiff alleged that the subject high value homeowners policy was in effect from July 23, 2017, until July 23, 2018, and that on March 16, 2018, he incurred a loss under the policy when certain personal property was stolen from his home. The plaintiff alleged that he filed a claim to recover for his loss but the insurer refused to fully compensate him based on an allegedly erroneous determination that the property that had been stolen was "business property" rather than "personal property."

After discovery, the insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the stolen property was used for business purposes within the meaning of a certain policy limitation, thus limiting the plaintiff's recovery for the loss to $12,500, which the insurer paid in full. The plaintiff opposed the insurer's motion and cross-moved for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the insurer. In an order dated April 13, 2021, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the insurer's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross motion. The insurer appeals.

In determining an insurance coverage dispute, the court must first look to the language of the policy (see Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 98 N.Y.2d 208, 221, 746 N.Y.S.2d 622, 774 N.E.2d 687 ; Conlon v. Allstate Veh. & Prop. Ins. Co., 152 A.D.3d 488, 490, 58 N.Y.S.3d 495 ). " ‘As with any contract, unambiguous provisions of an insurance contract must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and the interpretation of such provision is a question of law for the court’ " ( Concordia Gen. Contr. Co., Inc. v. Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 146 A.D.3d 932, 934, 46 N.Y.S.3d 146, quoting White v. Continental Cas. Co., 9 N.Y.3d 264, 267, 848 N.Y.S.2d 603, 878 N.E.2d 1019 ). "[I]f the agreement on its face is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning, a court...