IN THE MATTER OF SANDELL MOSTOW, RESPONDENT, ET AL., PETITIONER, v. STATE
FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES, APPELLANT.
88 N.Y.2d 321, 668 N.E.2d 392, 645 N.Y.S.2d 421 (1996).
June 5, 1996
2 No. 142 (1996 NY Int. 117)
Decided June 5, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Evan H. Krinick, for Appellant.
Donald Jay Schwartz, for Respondent.
New York State Insurance Association, et al., amici curiae.
TITONE, J.:
The question presented is whether the terms of a policy of insurance
providing that the $100,000 per person policy limit "is the amount of
coverage for all damages due to bodily injury to one person" and that
the $300,000 limits of liability for "'each accident' is the total
amount of coverage for all damages due to bodily injury to two or more
persons in the same accident" is ambiguous. Because the policy may be
reasonably construed as both limiting recovery to $100,000 per person
or alternatively as permitting the full $300,000 policy limits to be
apportioned among persons without reference to the per person limit
where two or more persons are injured, we conclude that the policy is
ambiguous and that its provisions should be construed in favor of the
insured.
Petitioners Sandell Mostow and Alan Mostow were involved in an
automobile accident in January 1992. After receiving the $10,000
policy limit from the carrier of the other vehicle, petitioners served
respondent State Farm with a demand for arbitration under the
underinsured motorist endorsement of their policy. The policy provided
in a declarations page that where the insured seeks damages for bodily
injury caused by an underinsured motorist, the limits of liability are
"$100,000 each person, $300,000 each accident." Policy provisions
pertaining to the amount of coverage shown on the declarations page
explain that:
(u)nder "Each Person" is the amount of coverage for all damages due
to bodily injury to one person. Under "Each Accident" is the total
SNIPPETS:
IN THE MATTER OF SANDELL MOSTOW, RESPONDENT, ET AL., PETITIONER, v.
New York State Insurance Association, et al., amici curiae.
The question presented is whether the terms of a policy of insurance providing that the
Because the policy may be reasonably construed as both limiting recovery to $100,000 per
Petitioners Sandell Mostow and Alan Mostow were involved in an automobile accident in January
After receiving the $10,000 policy limit from the carrier of the other vehicle, petitioners
Under "Each Accident" is the total amount of coverage for all damages due to bodily injury to
State Farm cross-petitioned pursuant to CPLR 7511 to vacate or modify the award by reducing
the court concluded that the arbitrators exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement by
Turning to a construction of the policy's terms, the court held that "the insurer's liability
Accordingly, the court determined that the ambiguity should be construed in favor of the
Insurance Law § 3420 states that all automobile policies insuring against personal injury or
Any such policy shall, at the option of the insured, * * * provide supplementary uninsured
The policy at issue here does not contain any language deeming the $300,000 per accident
We are not alone in concluding that this policy language is ambiguous.
Given that our precedent establishes that ambiguities in an insurance policy should be
Co. v Annunziatta, 67 NY2d 229, 232).
Thus, the Appellate Division properly declined to reduce the award of $190,000 to petitioner
The parties did not dispute at the Appellate Division, and do not raise here, Supreme Court's
|
