Legal Opinion · Dissent
Salimbene v. Merchants Mutual Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 14, 1995Published
1Dissent
Green, J. P., and Boehm, J. (dissenting).
We respectfully dissent. We do not agree with the majority that plaintiff’s alleged activity in connection with the strike constituted a "business pursuit” within the meaning of the policy exclusion. Because that term is not defined in the policy, it should be given a meaning that would be arrived at by the average policyholder (see, Lewis v Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp., 224 NY 18, 21; Ploen v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 138 Misc 2d 704, 709; Fadden v Cambridge Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 51 Misc 2d 858, 863, affd 27 AD2d 487). In our view, the average person would not…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Continental Casualty Co. v. Rapid-American Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Lewis v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- McGroarty v. Great American InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- A. Meyers & Sons Corp. v. Zurich American Insurance GroupNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Fadden v. Cambridge Mutual Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1966
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.