USCOA,2 No. 105
Hanna Rosner, as Guardian of Israel Rosner, Hanna Rosner,
Individually,
Respondent,
v.
Metropolitan Property and Liability Insurance Company,
Appellant, Charles D. Mintz, Letty Mintz,
Respondents.
_________________________________________________________________
2001 NY Int. 96
July 10, 2001
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Edward B. Flink, for appellant.
Brian J. Isaac, for respondent Rosner.
_________________________________________________________________
GRAFFEO, J.:
On May 29, 1996, while walking on a roadway, Israel Rosner was struck
by an automobile operated by Charles Mintz and owned by Leddy Mintz.
As a result of the accident, Rosner suffered serious head injuries. At
the time, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company insured
the Mintzes under an automobile liability policy with single limit
coverage of $100,000. For a number of years previously, Metropolitan
also provided a $1,000,000 personal excess liability policy to the
Mintzes.
After Metropolitan paid Rosner $100,000, the full amount of coverage
under the automobile policy, Rosner's guardian initiated a declaratory
judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York seeking a determination that the Mintzes'
personal excess liability policy remained in effect on May 29, 1996,
the day of the accident. Metropolitan contended that the excess
coverage policy was properly discontinued on May 25, 1996, just days
before the accident. In response to cross motions for summary
judgment, the District Court held in favor of Rosner, noting that
Insurance Law section 3425(a)(7) measured mandatory policy periods for
personal line insurance policies from the date policies are executed
rather than from the effective dates of coverage. Metropolitan
appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, finding no definitive judicial interpretation of this section
SNIPPETS:
USCOA,2 No. 105 Hanna Rosner, as Guardian of Israel Rosner, Hanna Rosner, Individually,
At the time, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company insured the Mintzes under
After Metropolitan paid Rosner $100,000, the full amount of coverage under the automobile
In response to cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court held in favor of
Metropolitan appealed and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, finding
At the crux of this controversy lies the effect of statutory language governing the renewal
"With respect to personal lines insurance policies, no notice of nonrenewal or conditional
A review of the facts pertinent to the excess liability coverage provided by Metropolitan to
Again, pursuant to the three-year required policy period of section 3425, the Mintzes and
In the absence of any controlling statutory definition, we construe words of ordinary import
Using these ordinary understandings of the phrase "as of," and reading section 3425in
Given this difference, plaintiffs contend the Legislature intended that the term for
Similarly, the Governor's Approval Memorandum explained that, despite the reduction in the
If the statute is interpreted to designate the date on which a policy was executed or
Following certification of a question by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
ed" as used in Insurance Law § 3425refers to the effective date of the policy.
|
