New York Court of Appeals, 1963

Walters v. Great American Indemnity Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 21, 1963

12 N.Y.2d 967; 189 N.E.2d 495

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision. The 11 that cite it most often are listed here.

HOME INS. CO., INC. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
Home Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
Stanley H. Fried, Jr., and Richard Strasser v. The North River Insurance Company (4th Cir. 1983)
Johnson v. United States Fire Insurance (8th Cir. 1978)
County of Wyoming, NY v. Erie Lackawanna Ry. Co. (District Court, W.D. New York 1973)
Mifsudo v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Michelson v. Massachusetts Casualty Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Mifsud v. Allstate Insurance (Civil Court of the City of New York 1982)
Yankelevitz v. Royal Globe Insurance (New York Supreme Court 1981)
Austrian v. Equitable Life Assurance Society (N.Y. 1976)
Consolidated Gas Supply Corp. v. Matula (N.Y. 1975)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Memorandum.

On the appeal by Great American Indemnity Company, the judgment should be reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts. Where the language in an insurance policy is susceptible to more than one meaning, such language should be construed most favorably to the insured *969(Hoffman v. Ætna Ins. Co., 32 N. Y. 405; Hartol Prods. Corp. v. Prudential Ins. Co., 290 N. Y. 44, 49), so as to reflect that meaning which the insured was led to believe or had reason to believe the language meant at the time he entered into the contract (Herrman v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 81 N. Y. 184). However, “ We are not to interpret where there is not reasonable doubt concerning what the parties really agreed upon ” (First Nat. Bank of East Islip v. National Sur. Co., 228 N. Y. 469, 472). “ Processes of construction may not be resorted to for the purpose of reading into the [policy] an intention not expressed or legitimately to be implied from the language used when construed in the light of the surrounding circumstances ” (Central Union Trust Co. v. Trimble, 255 N. Y. 88, 93). “ The contract was plain and unambiguous upon its face and the intent of the parties is clearly indicated by the language used ” (Nau v. Vulcan Rail & Constr. Co., 286 N. Y. 188, 198). Unquestionably the loss here resulted from the flow of water from an “ industrial appliance ”. Nothing in the insurance policy indicates that the industrial appliances used in the operation of the insured’s business are not intended to come within the exception. To read such a limitation into the exception would write the exception out of the policy.

The appeal taken by the plaintiffs should be dismissed since the judgment was unanimous and they have not obtained leave.

Judges Dye, Van Voobhis, Btjbke, Fosteb and Scileppi concur in a Memorandum; Chief Judge Desmond and Judge Fttld dissent and vote to affirm.

On appeal by defendant: Judgment reversed and complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts, in a memorandum.

On appeal by plaintiffs: Appeal dismissed, without costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.