Opinion ID: 687263
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Return Signed Transcripts

Text: 37 INA argues that the policy required Varda to sign and return transcripts from examinations under oath. We can find no such obligation in the insurance policy. 38 Courts resolve ambiguities in an insurance policy in the insured's favor. See, e.g., Cantanucci v. Reliance Ins. Co., 43 A.D.2d 622, 623, 349 N.Y.S.2d 187, 191 (3d Dep't 1973), aff'd 35 N.Y.2d 890, 364 N.Y.S.2d 890, 324 N.E.2d 360 (1974). The policy here required Varda, upon request, to submit to an examination under oath and sign a copy of the examination. The policy is silent or ambiguous, at best, about whether Varda had to return any EUO transcript it signed. It certainly does not expressly require Varda to return the transcript. 39 We realize, of course, that a signed transcript is of little value to INA if Varda keeps it. The policy's fuzzy language, however, coupled with INA's failure to demand that Varda return the signed transcript and Varda's cooperation during earlier parts of INA's investigation, persuades us that Varda's failure to return the signed transcript did not warrant the drastic remedy of dismissing Varda's suit. Cf. Pogo Holding Corp. v. New York Property Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 73 A.D.2d 605, 606, 422 N.Y.S.2d 123, 124 (2d Dep't 1979) (insured failed to sign and return an EUO transcript, although the insurer requested it; rather than have its complaint dismissed outright, the insured could cure the breach of contract). 40 Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of the fraud and transcript affirmative defenses.