Case Name: St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Respondent, v. Capri Construction Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Third-Party Defendant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1991-10-10
Citations: 78 N.Y.2d 1016
Docket Number: 
Parties: St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Respondent, v Capri Construction Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Third-Party Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 1016–1018

Head Matter:
St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Respondent, v Capri Construction Corp. et al., Appellants, et al., Third-Party Defendant.
Argued September 5, 1991;
decided October 10, 1991
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Bruce D. Mencher for appellants.
Victor K. Soffer for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment denied.
Plaintiffs submissions in support of its motion for summary judgment fail to establish that the rates applied in calculating the additional premium allegedly due under the policy were those required to be applied according to its rating plans filed with the Superintendent of Insurance. Thus, issues of fact remain to be resolved, precluding the grant of summary judgment in plaintiff's favor. Moreover, the case presents open questions concerning interpretation of the contract, and whether plaintiff was entitled to unilaterally change the rates specified in the contract, which cannot be resolved on the record before us.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.