Two frequently advanced arguments occurred in the same Federal Case recently. The Federal Judge ended up denying the Defendant Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss, granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend, and denying the Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment. The two arguments in question led directly to those outcomes:
1. Ambiguity in an exclusion, especially where as in that case there are also arguably a lot of policy forms and endorsements ("Plaintiff asserts, inter alia, that the insurance policy relevant to this action is itself a 'masterpiece of obfuscation,' containing no less than forty policy forms and endorsements, thereby raising questions of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Masonic Association of Utica, N.Y. v. West American Insurance Co., Download Masonic Association v. West American Insurance Co. (N.D.N.Y. Case No. 6.08cv00552 Memorandum-Decision and Order Filed March 30, 2010) also published as 2010 WL 1223177 *4 (N.D.N.Y. March 30, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw); and
2. Unsettled substantive Insurance Law regarding the Property Coverage, as for example, the Property Coverage issues of "collapse" versus "hidden decay," also in Masonic Association of Utica, N.Y. v. West American Insurance Co., 2010 WL 1223177 at *4.
Comments