Adirondack Insurance Exchange v. Mario DiMarco v. Michael G. Montag Insurance Agency, Inc. d/b/a MGM Associates of Rochester a/k/a MGM Insurance Associates
This case involved an insurance claim for alleged fire damage to one of two adjacent residential properties. The policy provided homeowners insurance coverage for DiMarco’s dwelling on the “residence premises” as defined in the Policy Declarations, as well as other structures on the “residence premises” set apart from the dwelling. The Policy Declarations defined “residence premises” as the property that was not damaged. The policy also included an endorsement for “Other Structures On Residence Premises,” with a description of such “other structures” as “storage.”
Adirondack commenced a declaratory judgment action and moved for summary judgment on the basis that the property that suffered the loss location was not insured under the policy. The court agreed, finding that the policy unambiguously limited DiMarco’s homeowner’s insurance coverage to the adjacent property and other structures located at the “residences premises,” which cannot include the Loss Location as it was undisputed that the Loss Location and the adjacent property were two separate and distinct properties.
The court also dismissed DiMarco’s counterclaim for reformation, explaining that DiMarco did not communicate “on any specific date, by any specific means” that he wanted the Loss Location covered by the policy and that “on any specific date, by any specific means, a specific representative” of Adirondack agreed to provide such coverage. For these same reasons, the court also denied DiMarco’s motion for leave to amend his answer to add additional factual allegations in support of his reformation counterclaim.
Finally, the court denied DiMarco’s motion for leave to amend his answer to add a counterclaim for breach of contract regarding DiMarco’s personal property. The policy’s personal property coverage was expressly limited to 10% of the overall coverage limit for any personal property “usually located at an ‘insured’s’ residence, other than the ‘residence premises[.]’” DiMarco argued that the 10% of coverage limitation was inapplicable because he used the Loss Location for storage and not as an actual residence. The court held that the amended counterclaim was futile and without merit as “[a]n insured of ordinary intelligence and experience reasonably would expect the phrase “an ‘insured’s’ residence, other than the ‘residence premises’” to apply to any residential premises owned by the insured, regardless of how the premises are used or whether the insured occupies the premises.”
Kevin Buckley and Rachel Horzempa Winship represented Adirondack Insurance Exchange.
To read the Court’s decision, click here: Decision – Adirondack