TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Mendon Ponds Tennis Club, Inc.

Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Mendon Ponds Tennis Club, Inc., Appellants-Respondents

Philadelphia Indem. Ins. v. Mendon Ponds Tennis Club, Inc., 259 A.D.2d 957 (1999)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 19, 1999
Citations
259 A.D.2d 957687 N.Y.S.2d 5111999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3058

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in failing to grant in its entirety the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment declaring that it had no duty to indemnify Mendon Ponds Tennis Club, Inc. (Tennis Club), Roger Wootton and Laura Wootton (collectively defendants) for property damage pursuant to a policy of commercial property liability insurance. The record establishes that the Woottons, who are officers and shareholders of the Tennis Club, made misrepresentations concerning the extent of prior insurance claims on the policy application. Plaintiff submitted “proof of its underwriting practices with respect to applicants with similar histories” (Church of Transfiguration v New Hampshire Ins. Co., 207 AD2d 1039 ), establishing as a matter of law that the misrepresentations were material (cf., Jones v Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 238 AD2d 884 ; Ferris v Columbian Mut. Ins. Co., 190 AD2d 1061, 1062-1063 ). Therefore, we modify the judgment, grant in its entirety the motion and grant judgment in favor of plaintiff declaring that plaintiff had no duty to indemnify defendants for property damage that occurred in July 1995. In light of our determination, it is unnecessary to reach the issues raised on defendants’ appeal. (Appeals from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Stander, J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Pigott, Jr., and Balio, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1999: 12001: 12003: 119992026peak 1999 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Campese v. National Grange Mutual Insurance259 A.D.2d 957 (1999)
  2. Pratz v. Wayne Cooperative Insurance187 Misc. 2d 894 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001)
  3. Wood v. Ontario Insurance2 A.D.3d 1445 (2003)

Most recent

  1. Wood v. Ontario Insurance2 A.D.3d 1445 (2003)
  2. Pratz v. Wayne Cooperative Insurance187 Misc. 2d 894 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2001)
  3. Campese v. National Grange Mutual Insurance259 A.D.2d 957 (1999)

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Ferris v. Columbian Mut. Ins., 190 A.D.2d 1061 (1993) 6
Church of Transfiguration v. N.H. Ins., 207 A.D.2d 1039 (1994) 4
Jones v. Paul Revere Life Ins., 238 A.D.2d 884 (1997) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list