Justice Arthur M. Diamond

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Insurers moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint in this action arising from damages to plaintiffs’ home as a result of Superstorm Sandy. Plaintiffs asserted a breach of contract cause of action alleging the damage to their home was solely caused by high winds of the storm, while defendants moved for summary judgment dismissal arguing all the damage to the home resulted from water from the storm, which was excluded from policy coverage. Defendants attached excerpts of deposition transcripts of plaintiff Frank Percora, and three expert witnesses plaintiffs disclosed, but none of the transcripts were in their completed form, and as such, their papers were insufficient, and request appropriately denied. The court noted even assuming all copies were properly included, nowhere in plaintiffs’ opposition papers did plaintiffs suggest damage caused by water should be covered as they conceded they did not have flood insurance. Yet, they argued the damage asserted that was part of the denial of coverage was for wind damage, which was covered, attaching expert witness transcripts indicating damage can be solely attributed to wind damage, regardless of water damage that may have occurred. As such, outstanding triable issues preclude insurers’ motion.

Justice Arthur M. Diamond

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Insurers moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint in this action arising from damages to plaintiffs’ home as a result of Superstorm Sandy. Plaintiffs asserted a breach of contract cause of action alleging the damage to their home was solely caused by high winds of the storm, while defendants moved for summary judgment dismissal arguing all the damage to the home resulted from water from the storm, which was excluded from policy coverage. Defendants attached excerpts of deposition transcripts of plaintiff Frank Percora, and three expert witnesses plaintiffs disclosed, but none of the transcripts were in their completed form, and as such, their papers were insufficient, and request appropriately denied. The court noted even assuming all copies were properly included, nowhere in plaintiffs’ opposition papers did plaintiffs suggest damage caused by water should be covered as they conceded they did not have flood insurance. Yet, they argued the damage asserted that was part of the denial of coverage was for wind damage, which was covered, attaching expert witness transcripts indicating damage can be solely attributed to wind damage, regardless of water damage that may have occurred. As such, outstanding triable issues preclude insurers’ motion.