American Transit Insurance v. Val-Roc Trucking, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Transit Insurance v. Val-Roc Trucking, Inc.

242 A.D.2d 469, 662 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8802

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 18, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D.2d 469 (American Transit Insurance v. Val-Roc Trucking, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Transit Insurance v. Val-Roc Trucking, Inc., 242 A.D.2d 469, 662 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8802 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered October 21, 1996, declaring in plaintiff insurer’s favor that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify defendants vehicle owner and driver in a negligence action in which defendants-appellants are plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has no obligation to defend or indemnify defendants owner and driver, it being undisputed that any insurance coverage was terminated at least two and a half months before the accident. The prior proceeding, which resulted in a finding that the offending vehicle was insured by plaintiff at the time of the accident (see, Desriusseaux v Val-Roc Truck Corp., 230 AD2d 704), does not collaterally estop plaintiff from asserting otherwise herein, the prior finding of coverage having been made on default in a proceeding that involved a potential financial exposure inconsequential compared to the damages sought in the negligence action (see, Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents, 72 NY2d 261). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Colabella, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Norman Ryp, J.), entered October 21, 1996, declaring in plaintiff insurer’s favor that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify defendants vehicle owner and driver in a negligence action in which defendants-appellants are plaintiffs, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has no obligation to defend or indemnify defendants owner and driver, it being undisputed that any insurance coverage was terminated at least two and a half months before the accident. The prior proceeding, which resulted in a finding that the offending vehicle was insured by plaintiff at the time of the accident (see, Desriusseaux v Val-Roc Truck Corp., 230 AD2d 704), does not collaterally estop plaintiff from asserting otherwise herein, the prior finding of coverage having been made on default in a proceeding that involved a potential financial exposure inconsequential compared to the damages sought in the negligence action (see, Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents, 72 NY2d 261). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 469, 662 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-transit-insurance-v-val-roc-trucking-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack