Simms v. Liberty Insurance Corporation
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Insurance coverage under a homeowners policy limited to a 'residence premises' defined as a one- to four-family dwelling; whether a building configured as a five- or six-family dwelling qualifies.
The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the insurer’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for a declaration that the property did not meet the policy’s 'residence premises' definition, and adhered to that denial upon reargument.
The Appellate Division reversed, granted the insurer’s summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, and directed entry of a declaration that the property did not conform to the policy’s 'residence premises' definition; the reargument order was vacated and the appeal from it dismissed as academic.
The policy language was clear and unambiguous, limiting coverage to one- to four-family dwellings. The insurer showed the property was configured as a five- or six-family dwelling, establishing proper denial of coverage. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.
Background
A residential building in Brooklyn owned by Gregory A. Simms suffered fire damage. The building was insured by Liberty Insurance Corporation under a policy covering losses at the 'residence premises,' defined as a one-, two-, three-, or four-family dwelling. Liberty denied coverage, asserting the building was configured as a five- or six-family dwelling and therefore did not meet the policy definition. Simms sued for breach of contract and declaratory relief. He moved, among other things, under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(b) [motion to dismiss defenses] to dismiss Liberty’s third affirmative defense. Liberty cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for a declaration that the property did not conform to the policy definition.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County (Debra Silber, J.), denied the insurer’s cross-motion for summary judgment. On Liberty’s motion for leave to reargue, the court granted reargument but adhered to its original determination denying summary judgment.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held the policy unambiguous and limited coverage to one- to four-family dwellings. Liberty established through the policy and evidence of the building’s five- or six-family configuration that its denial of coverage was proper. Simms failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court reversed the August 15, 2023 order insofar as appealed from, granted Liberty’s summary judgment, dismissed the complaint, vacated the October 30, 2023 order, dismissed the appeal from that order as academic, awarded costs to Liberty, and remitted for entry of a judgment declaring the property did not conform to the policy’s 'residence premises' definition.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that clear, unambiguous insurance policy terms are enforced as written and that coverage tied to 'residence premises' definitions based on dwelling unit count will preclude coverage where the insured property exceeds the specified unit limit. Interpretation of unambiguous insurance provisions is a matter of law for the court, and insurers may obtain summary judgment where the policy language and property configuration are undisputed.
In New York, when a homeowners policy limits 'residence premises' coverage to one- to four-family dwellings, a building configured as a five- or six-family dwelling falls outside coverage as a matter of law; insureds must ensure the property’s configuration matches policy definitions to avoid denial of claims.