12 W. 47th St. L.L.C. v Amari, 2009 NY Slip Op 52055(U) (App. Term, 1st, 2009)
A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the trial court’s determination that defendant was only responsible for paying half of the monthly rent for the leased premises, with another individual (a nonparty) responsible for the remaining half. We reject plaintiff’s assertion that the trial court erred in considering pleadings verified by the parties in this (and a related) action (see e.g. Bogoni v Friedlander, 197 AD2d 281, 291-292 [1994]; Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 8-215 [Farrell 11th ed]).
That was it for the “obvious” thing.
MIC Prop. & Cas. Corp. v Avila, 2009 NY Slip Op 06813 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
Merqui’s admission that he was engaged in a speed contest at the time of the accident also is not dispositive here. At issue here is the meaning of the term “speed contest” in the exclusion from coverage contained in the insurance policy issued by MIC. To ” negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case’” (Belt Painting Corp. v TIG Ins. Co., 100 NY2d 377, 383, quoting Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp., 80 NY2d 640, 652; see Incorporated Vil. of Cedarhurst v Hanover Ins. Co., 89 NY2d 293, 298). Any ambiguity in the exclusion is to be construed against the insurer (see Allstate Ins. Co. v Noorhassan, 158 AD2d 638, 639). “The test for ambiguity is whether the language in the insurance contract is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations. The focus of the test is on the reasonable expectations of the average insured upon reading the policy” (NIACC, LLC v Greenwich Ins. Co., 51 AD3d 883, 884 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). “The insurance company bears the burden of establishing that the exclusions apply in a particular case and they are subject to no other reasonable interpretation” (MDW Enters. v CNA Ins. Co., 4 AD3d 338, 340; see Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 NY2d 304, 311; Gaetan v Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, 264 AD2d 806, 808). MIC failed to carry this burden here.
This really isn’t related to no-fault. I just like the decision and had nowhere else to put it.