a strict and narrow construction, with any ambiguity resolved against the insurer.” Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co., 100 N.Y.2d 377, 763 N.Y.S.2d 790, 795 N.E.2d 15, 17 (2003). “To negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case.” Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Rapid-Am. Corp., 80 N.Y.2d 640, 593 N.Y.S.2d 966, 609 N.E.2d 506, 512 (1993); Belt Painting Corp., 763 N.Y.S.2d 790, 795 N.E.2d at 17; see Frontier Insulation, 667 N.Y.S.2d 982, 690 N.E.2d at 868-69 (noting that insurer bears “heavy burden” in negating coverage by an exclusion); Throgs Neck Bagels, Inc, v. GA Ins. Co. of N.Y., 241 A.D.2d 66, 671 N.Y.S.2d 66, 69 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Further, an insurer may not construe a policy
holding that for purposes of statutory construction expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other holding that to negate coverage under an exclusion insurer must show that its construction is the only construction that could fairly be placed thereon holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding that a courts prior judicial construction of a statute trumps an agency construction otherwise entitled to chevron deference only if the prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute and thus leaves no room for agency discretion holding that if precise issue is not clear in statute reviewing court must not simply impose its own construction but must determine whether agencys construction is permissible