Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harrington v. Amiga Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided July 12, 1996Published

1Dissent

Green, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. Under the loss settlement section of the policy, defendant agreed to pay the cost to repair or replace plaintiffs dwelling. That section further provides that defendant’s obligation to pay more than the actual cash value of the damage does not arise unless "actual repair or replacement is complete.” Nothing in the policy imposes the additional condition that the repair or replacement be made by plaintiff himself. Had defendant intended to place that further limitation upon plaintiffs recovery, it could have done so explicitly (see, Ruter v…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lewis v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
  2. Miller v. Continental InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Ruter v. Northwestern Fire and Marine Ins. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962
  4. Paluszek v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1987
  5. Reese v. Northern InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1965

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API