During a review, the term "reasonable care" as used in the policy is ambiguous inasmuch as it is susceptible of at least two reasonable interpretations, at least one of which supports plaintiffs' contention that they exercised reasonable care, and this ambiguity was not resolved by extrinsic evidence. (Credit: Robert Kneschke/Shutterstock.com)
The Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department has found that a lower court erred by not awarding partial summary judgment to plaintiffs in an insurance coverage dispute. The case arose from water damage due to the plumbing system freezing because the term "reasonable care" as used in the homeowner's policy was ambiguous, and the "unoccupied home" exclusion relied on by defendant did not unambiguously apply; plaintiffs' used reasonable, albeit unsuccessful, efforts to maintain the heat in their seasonal home.
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
- Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
- Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.
Already have an account? Sign In
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
