Henry Modell & Co. v. General Insurance
Henry Modell and Company, Inc. v. General Insurance Company of Trieste & Venice, Doing Business as Generali
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered on or about February 4, 1992, which granted defendant insurer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and declaring that there is no insurance coverage provided for plaintiffs claimed loss, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The IAS Court properly determined that plaintiff insured’s claim for loss and damage to its retail store merchandise allegedly caused by dust, dirt and debris infiltrating and permeating the insured’s premises as a result of a neighboring Metropolitan Transportation Authority subway construction project was not covered under the policy of commercial property insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff by reason of the plaintiffs failure to give timely notice of the claim "as soon as possible” as required by the policy (Power Auth. v Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 117 AD2d 336, 339 ), because the damages claimed occurred prior to the inception of the policy and were fully known to the plaintiff more than eight *413 months before the commencement of coverage (Insurance Law § 1101 [a] [1], [2]; cf., Danzeisen Realty Corp. v Continental Ins. Co., 170 AD2d 432 ), because the plaintiffs failure to prevent the infiltration of the dust and dirt through its air conditioning and ventilation units barred coverage under the policy exclusion for damages caused by faulty maintenance, and because the damage to the property was due to "pollutants” or "contaminants” specifically excluded from coverage under the policy’s pollution exclusion (Park-Ohio Indus. v Home Indem. Co., 975 F2d 1215, 1219; Powers Chemco v Federal Ins. Co., 74 NY2d 910, 911 ).
We have reviewed the plaintiffs remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that no insurance coverage exists when, inter alia, “the damages claimed occurred prior to the inception of the policy and were fully known to the plaintiff ... before the commencement of coverage”)
-
(holding that losses which occurred more than eight months before the commencement of the policy, and were known to the insured, were not covered under the insurance policy)
-
(dust and debris in apartment resulting from subway construction project is covered by the pollution exclusion)
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. The Stroh Companies, Inc. And the Stroh Brewery Company
- Lefrak Organization, Inc. v. Chubb Custom Insurance
- Allen v. Scottsdale Insurance
- Calvert Insurance v. S & L Realty Corp.
- 40 Gardenville, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty of America
- Chase Manhattan Bank v. New Hampshire Insurance
Most recent
- Jung Sook Choi v. AmTrust North America
- Keyspan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc.
- Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reins. Am., Inc.
- S.T.A. Parking Corp. v. Lancer Insurance
- Abraham Natural Foods Corp. v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance
- 40 Gardenville, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty of America
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.