Opinion · New York Court of Appeals

Moshiko, Inc. v. Seiger & Smith, Inc.

72 N.Y.2d 945

Type
Opinion
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1988-09-20
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “A court may neither make nor vary an insurance contract by extending coverage beyond the fair intent and meaning of the agreement, and the liability of the insurer cannot be enlarged by implication beyond the express terms of the contract.”
  • court may not invent ambiguity where none exists
  • clear insurance policies are enforced as written

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Moshiko, Inc. v. Seiger & Smith, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
21 opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order of the Appellate Division insofar as it granted summary judgment to defendant Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice Joseph P. Sullivan at the Appellate Division (137 AD2d 170) addressing that portion of the litigation; appeal from so much of the order insofar as it denied plaintiffs’ *948 motion for summary judgment against defendants Seiger & Smith, Inc., and Vasaka dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that that portion of the order does not finally determine the action between the affected parties within the meaning of the Constitution.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa.