Legal Opinion

Lane v. Security Mutual Insurance

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 13, 2001PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Smith, J.

The issue on appeal is whether a fire insurance policy that excludes coverage for the intentional fire set by “an insured” violates Insurance Law § 3404 when applied to exclude coverage to an innocent insured. We conclude that it does.

Defendant issued plaintiff a homeowner’s insurance policy that provided coverage against loss by fire. The policy excluded coverage for loss resulting from intentional acts by “an insured,” and defined “an insured” as “you and, if residents of your household, your relatives.” That definition included plaintiff and her six minor…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Allstate Insurance v. MugaveroNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
  2. Reed v. Federal InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. Lane v. Security Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Slayko v. Security Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
  2. TAG 380 v. ComMet 380, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Jacobson v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
  4. Sager v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2004
  5. Volquardson v. Hartford InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 2002

22 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