Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Pulido
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
2Per curiam
In this case we are asked to determine whether an insurer is obligated to defend and indemnify an insured under a homeowner’s policy where the insured is not a resident of the insured premises. Under the facts of this case, we conclude that the policy at issue did not provide such coverage.
In February 1996, the plaintiff, Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Met), issued a homeowners liability policy to the defendants John B. Perdue and Estelle Perdue, insuring premises located at 1082 Joselson Avenue in Bayshore, New York (hereinafter the…
3Cases cited13 opinions
- Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- In re AhoNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Breed v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Gilbert Frank Corp. v. Federal InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
- Zappone v. Home InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by12 opinions
- Interboro Insurance v. FatmirAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Marshall v. Tower InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Allstate Indemnity Co. v. NelsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Milgrim v. Royal & SunAlliAnce InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Revill v. Boston Post Road Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.