Zappone v. Home Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Sweeney and Casey, JJ.,
dissent and vote to affirm in the following memorandum by Casey, J. Casey, J. (dissenting). The majority, after recognizing that the wording of subdivision 8 of section 167 of the Insurance Law is “clear and unequivocal”, with “no exclusion or exception” (Preisch v Continental Cas. Co., 55 AD2d 117, 121, mot for lv to app den 41 NY2d 802), nevertheless construes the statute’s unconditional requirement that an insurer notify its insured of its denial of coverage as inapplicable where the policy affords no coverage. Notably, there is no citation of authority for this…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hartford Insurance v. County of NassauNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Allstate Insurance v. GrossNew York Court of Appeals · 1970
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. ElgotAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
- Perez v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1969
- Preisch v. Continental Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.