Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Insurance Company (12-1470-cv) - Second Circuit Certifies Coverage Question To New York Court of Appeals
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Insurance Company (12-1470-cv)
Per the Second Circuit:
"This case asks us to consider the interplay between two provisions in a fire insurance policy. One requires the insured to file suit on the policy within two years. The second requires the insured, when seeking replacement costs, to replace the damaged property before bringing suit, and to complete the replacement work "as soon as reasonably possible." What happens to insured property that cannot reasonably be replaced within two years? As New York case law does not clearly resolve the question raised by this appeal, we conclude that certification to the New York State Court of Appeals is appropriate."
***
Those of a less recent vintage will remember Judge Baime's presage:
We will not tarry with a lengthy discussion of United's highly technical arguments which wholly obfuscate the purpose of our inquiry. Summoning arcane constructional aids, "some as dated and as irrelevant as Roman law," s​ee Diamond Shamrock Chemicals v. Aetna, 258 N.J.Super. 167, 242, 609 A.2d 440 (App.Div. 1992), United seeks to deny what the uncontradicted evidence plainly shows; its policy was intended to cover product liability risks. In plain language, United has adopted the unholy mantra, "we collect premiums; we do not pay claims." We recognize that this is a harsh judgment. It is nonetheless warranted by the record before us.
Full text of the decisions after the jump...
Per the Second Circuit:
"This case asks us to consider the interplay between two provisions in a fire insurance policy. One requires the insured to file suit on the policy within two years. The second requires the insured, when seeking replacement costs, to replace the damaged property before bringing suit, and to complete the replacement work "as soon as reasonably possible." What happens to insured property that cannot reasonably be replaced within two years? As New York case law does not clearly resolve the question raised by this appeal, we conclude that certification to the New York State Court of Appeals is appropriate."
***
Those of a less recent vintage will remember Judge Baime's presage:
We will not tarry with a lengthy discussion of United's highly technical arguments which wholly obfuscate the purpose of our inquiry. Summoning arcane constructional aids, "some as dated and as irrelevant as Roman law," s​ee Diamond Shamrock Chemicals v. Aetna, 258 N.J.Super. 167, 242, 609 A.2d 440 (App.Div. 1992), United seeks to deny what the uncontradicted evidence plainly shows; its policy was intended to cover product liability risks. In plain language, United has adopted the unholy mantra, "we collect premiums; we do not pay claims." We recognize that this is a harsh judgment. It is nonetheless warranted by the record before us.
Full text of the decisions after the jump...
