Legal Memorandum: Construction of Terms in a Policy

Issue: Under New York law, where ordinary terms are not defined in a policy, how should a court construe those terms?

Where there are no definitions for terms such as of "Weight of Snow" or "Collapse" in the policy, those terms must be construed as an ordinary person would read them. Moneta Dev. Corp. v. Generali Ins. Co. of Trieste & Venice, 212 A.D.2d 428, 622 N.Y.S.2d 930, 931 (1st Dep’t 1995).  Moreover, policy language must be construed as written, and all ambiguities are to be construed in a manner favorable to the insured.  Sincoff v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 11 N.Y.2d 386, 390, 183 N.E.2d 899, 230 N.Y.S.2d 13, 15 (1962).

Where a term, such as "snow" is not otherwise defined in the policy, it must be given its ordinary meaning.  Moneta Dev. Corp. v. Generali Ins. Co. of Trieste & Venice, 212 A.D.2d 428, 622 N.Y.S.2d 930, 931 (1st Dep’t 1995);  U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Annunziata, 67 N.Y.2d 229, 232, 492 N.E.2d 1206, 501 N.Y.S.2d 790, 791 (1986).  An insurer’s attempt to equate a term with a different meaning will fail.  Sincoff, 11 N.Y.2d at 390-91, 183 N.E.2d 899, 230 N.Y.S.2d at 15-16.  And to the extent there is doubt about the meaning of these terms, such ambiguities in policy language must be construed in favor of the insured, not the insurer.  Cone v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 75 N.Y.2d 747, 749, 551 N.E.2d 92, 551 N.Y.S.2d 891, 892 […]