You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Cohen v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co.

Citation: 2019 NY Slip Op 6470Docket: 2018-02526

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; September 11, 2019; New York; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

In Cohen v. Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co., the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York affirmed a lower court's order granting plaintiffs summary judgment on the issue of liability in a breach of a homeowner's insurance policy case. The plaintiffs, Craig Cohen and others, filed a claim with the defendant, Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company, after their home sustained water damage from a clogged toilet. The defendant denied coverage citing an exclusion for water backing up through sewers or drains. The court determined that the plaintiffs established their right to summary judgment by demonstrating the existence of a valid insurance policy, that a loss occurred, a timely claim was filed, and that the loss was covered under the policy's terms. In contrast, the defendant failed to raise any factual issues regarding the applicability of policy exclusions. The decision, rendered on September 11, 2019, confirmed the lower court's ruling and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

Legal Issues Addressed

Insurance Policy Exclusions

Application: The defendant failed to introduce any factual issues regarding the applicability of an exclusion for water backing up through sewers or drains, leading to the court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs.

Reasoning: In contrast, the defendant failed to raise any factual issues regarding the applicability of policy exclusions.

Summary Judgment in Insurance Disputes

Application: The court affirmed the granting of summary judgment to the plaintiffs by establishing the existence of a valid insurance policy and that the loss was covered under the policy's terms.

Reasoning: The court determined that the plaintiffs established their right to summary judgment by demonstrating the existence of a valid insurance policy, that a loss occurred, a timely claim was filed, and that the loss was covered under the policy's terms.