Siegel v. Chubb Corp., 33 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Siegel v. Chubb Corp., 33 A.D.3d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cleary v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. (nyappdiv, 2016-07-06)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cleary v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
Co., 37 AD3d at 515 ; Siegel v Chubb Corp., 33 AD3d 565, 566 [2006]; Hritz v Saco, 18 AD3d 377, 378-379 [2005]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fabozzi v. Lexington Insurance
2d Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
Co., 472 F.3d 33, 48 (2d Cir.2006) (interpreting the word “cause” in an insurance contract governed by New York law and stating that “[i]n a case where a covered and [non-covered] peril combine to cause a covered loss, courts typically apply the efficient proximate cause rule — meaning, that the insured is entitled to coverage only if the covered peril is the predominant cause of the loss or damage” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Siegel v. Chubb Corp., 33 A.D.3d 565 , 825 N.Y.S.2d 441, 442 (1st Dep’t 2006).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Orleans Parish School Board v. Lexington Insurance Co. (2×)
La. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Siegel v. Chubb Corp., 33 A.D.3d 565, 566 , 825 N.Y.S.2d 441 (2006) (wherein the court determined that mold itself was the efficient proximate cause of the insured's loss and therefore excluded by the policy language which barred recovery for "any loss caused by ... mold”). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gary R. Siegel, as Trustee for Equity Resources Trust
v.
The Chubb Corporation, and Pacific Indemnity Company
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 31, 2006.
33 A.D.3d 565
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon,[*566] J.), entered April 12, 2006, which granted defendant Pacific Indemnity’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it and awarding $120,000 on Pacific’s counterclaim, and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff Kramer was forced to vacate his condominium when environmental testing demonstrated high levels of toxins in the air, caused by mold. Kramer sought extra living expenses under his all-risk policy written by Pacific, and received a $120,000 advance without prejudice to recovery. Pacific later disclaimed coverage under the mold exclusion, and counterclaimed for return of the advance.

Pacific met its burden of demonstrating that the mold exclusion of the policy applied (see Hritz v Saco, 18 AD3d 377 [2005]). The policy excludes “any loss caused by . . . mold.” The term “caused by” is defined as “any loss that is contributed to, made worse by, or in any way results from that peril.” Plaintiffs’ assertion that the loss was caused not by mold but by toxins in the air" is unavailing, as mold is the “efficient proximate cause” of the insured’s loss (id. at 379; see generally Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 505 F2d 989, 1006-1007 [2d Cir 1974]). Moreover, there is no evidence that the mold was caused by any leak, which plaintiffs argue would be a covered occurrence.

We have examined plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.P, Andrias, Marlow, McGuire and Malone, JJ.