Klein v. State Farm Ins. Co.

198 A.D.3d 741

156 N.Y.S.3d 68

Evan KLEIN, et al., appellants,

v.STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent.

2018–07734

Index No. 8729/15

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

Argued—September 20, 2021

October 13, 2021

Evan Klein, Smithtown, NY, appellant pro se.

Bennett, Bricklin & Saltzburg, LLC, New York, N.Y. (Thomas J. Bracken of counsel), for respondent.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., BETSY BARROS, PAUL WOOTEN, DEBORAH A. DOWLING, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (C. Stephen Hackeling, J.), dated April 18, 2018. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs are the owners of real property located in Suffolk County that was insured under a homeowners insurance policy issued by the defendant. During the coverage period, the plaintiffs’ in-ground swimming pool collapsed, causing damage to the pool walls, brick border, and patio area surrounding the pool. The plaintiffs submitted a claim to the defendant for coverage under the policy, and the defendant disclaimed coverage for the portion of the claim involving damage to the pool walls, brick border, and patio area surrounding the pool on various grounds, including based upon a clause in the policy that excluded loss caused by "collapse." Thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant to recover damages for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of General Business Law § 349, and for a judgment declaring that the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs for damages resulting from its failure to adequately investigate and fully pay their claim. Following discovery, the defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. The plaintiffs appeal.

"In construing policy provisions defining the scope of coverage pursuant to a policy of insurance, courts first look to the language of the policy" ( Regency Condominium v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 188 A.D.3d 742, 743, 134 N.Y.S.3d 384 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see ABM Mgmt. Corp. v. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co., 112 A.D.3d 763, 764, 977 N.Y.S.2d 330 ). " ‘The unambiguous terms of an insurance contract must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and the interpretation of such terms is a question of law for the court’ " ( Regency Condominium v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 188 A.D.3d at 743, 134 N.Y.S.3d 384, quoting Yeshiva Viznitz v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 132 A.D.3d 853, 854, 18 N.Y.S.3d 168 ). "[E]xclusions or exceptions from coverage must be specific and clear in order to be enforced’ " ( Hudson Shore Assoc., L.P. v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 172 A.D.3d 830, 830, 99 N.Y.S.3d 440, quoting Labate v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 45 A.D.3d 811, 812, 847 N.Y.S.2d 128 ; see Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Gillette Co., 64 N.Y.2d 304, 311, 486 N.Y.S.2d 873, 476 N.E.2d 272 ; Jahier v. Liberty Mut. Group, 64 A.D.3d 683, 684, 883 N.Y.S.2d 283 ). " ‘[I]f the terms of the policy are ambiguous, any ambiguity must be constructed in favor of the insured and against the insurer’ " ( Regency Condominium v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 188 A.D.3d at 743, 134 N.Y.S.3d 384, quoting Yeshiva Viznitz v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 132 A.D.3d at 854, 18 N.Y.S.3d 168 ).

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the breach of contract cause of action by demonstrating that the "collapse" exclusion of the policy was unambiguous and clearly applied to the plaintiffs’ loss (see Regency Condominium v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 188 A.D.3d at 743, 134 N.Y.S.3d 384 ; Jahier v. Liberty Mut. Group, 64 A.D.3d at 685, 883 N.Y.S.2d 283 ). Under the plain language of the policy, loss to property caused by "collapse" is excluded from coverage except where, at a minimum, the collapse involves the collapse "of a building or any part of a building." Here, the evidence demonstrated that the plaintiffs’ loss was attributable to the collapse of their in-ground pool, which is not "a building or any part of a building," thereby rendering the exception to the "collapse" exclusion under the policy inapplicable to the plaintiffs’ loss (see Regency Condominium v. Dongbu Ins. Co., Ltd., 188 A.D.3d at 743, 134 N.Y.S.3d 384 ; Jahier v. Liberty Mut. Group, 64 A.D.3d at 684–685, 883 N.Y.S.2d 283 ; Black's Law Dictionary [11th ed 2019], building). In opposition to the defendant's prima facie showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ).

The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ remaining causes of action (see generally Light v. Light, 64 A.D.3d 633, 634, 883 N.Y.S.2d 553 ). The complaint failed to state a cause of action for breach of the implied...