Koczwara v. Nationwide General Insurance Company

Background

Stanislaw Koczwara sued Nationwide General Insurance Company for allegedly breaching a homeowner’s insurance policy by denying coverage for losses from a November 8, 2018 fire at his Brooklyn property. Koczwara’s insurance application stated that the building contained three families and three units. The policy covered the “one, two, three or four-family” dwelling at the listed address.

The undisputed evidence showed that each of the building’s three floors contained two apartment units, for at least six separate units. The units had separate entrances and leases, and at least six unrelated people lived there when the fire occurred. Koczwara testified that the building had been configured that way since he purchased it in 1995. After the fire, Nationwide learned of the additional units and denied coverage.

Koczwara initially brought the case through counsel, but his counsel later withdrew, leaving him to oppose Nationwide’s motion and file his own cross-motion for summary judgment.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied New York contract law. It explained that an insurance policy’s clear language controls and that summary judgment is appropriate when the material facts are undisputed and the governing contract language is unambiguous.

The court held that the policy’s definition of “residence premises”—a one-, two-, three-, or four-family dwelling—did not cover Koczwara’s property. The court treated the actual configuration and use of the building as decisive, regardless of the number of units legally authorized by city records or the building’s original floor plan. Because the property contained at least six self-contained residential units, it was not a covered dwelling under the policy.

The court rejected Koczwara’s argument that the words “family dwelling,” rather than “unit building,” made the policy ambiguous. It also rejected his argument that Nationwide should have inspected the property before issuing the policy, concluding that neither the policy nor New York law required such an inspection. The court further stated that a negligence claim not included in the pleadings could not be added through summary-judgment briefing.

The court did not decide Nationwide’s alternative argument that Koczwara’s alleged misrepresentation about the number of families and units made the policy void. It also did not decide whether Nationwide could rescind the policy under New York Insurance Law § 3105(b), because the lack of coverage independently resolved the case.

Disposition

Judge Barbara Moses granted Nationwide’s motion for summary judgment and denied Koczwara’s cross-motion. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Nationwide and close the case.