Concluding that these two “conflicting provisions” could not reasonably be reconciled, the trial court ruled that Allstate could not rely on the fact that Mr. Gulati had not been residing at the premises at the time of the fire to deny coverage. (Photo: Shutterstock)

This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry’s only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit the website to subscribe.

A trial court in New York has ruled that because a homeowner’s insurance policy contained conflicting provisions, an insurance company had to cover the damages the insured suffered when one of his two homes was destroyed by fire. The trial court also ruled that the insurer was estopped from denying coverage.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free
PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader.


  • All news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
  • Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
  • Other award-winning websites including and

Already have an account?



Join PropertyCasualty360

Don’t miss crucial news and insights you need to make informed decisions for your P&C insurance business. Join now!

  • Unlimited access to - your roadmap to thriving in a disrupted environment
  • Access to other award-winning ALM websites including, and
  • Exclusive discounts on PropertyCasualty360, National Underwriter, Claims and ALM events

Already have an account? Sign In Now
Join PropertyCasualty360

Copyright © 2022 ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.