Arvid Oksa v. American Employer's Insurance Company

Second Circuit

Arvid Oksa v. American Employer's Insurance Company

218 F.2d 585

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 4, 1955

Docket23220_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 218 F.2d 585 (Arvid Oksa v. American Employer's Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arvid Oksa v. American Employer's Insurance Company, 218 F.2d 585 (2d Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On April 25, 1951 the plaintiff purchased from the defendant a one year motor vehicle liability policy which enabled him to comply with the New York Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act then in force, Vehicle and Traffic Law, McK. Consol.Laws, c. 71, § 94 et seq. The limits of liability, as expressly stated in the policy, were $5,000 for each person killed or injured, with a maximum of $10,000 for all persons involved in a single accident. By an amendment to the statute effective July 1, 1951, Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 94-Z, the minimum policy limits required for proof of financial responsibility were increased to $10,000 and $20,000. In August 1951 the plaintiff’s automobile was involved in an accident. Thereafter the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles suspended the plaintiff’s license to operate a motor vehicle because his liability policy did not meet the financial responsibility requirements of the 1951 amendment. The present action sought damages from the defendant because it had not increased the limits of liability of the policy to satisfy the new requirements. The complaint contained four counts alleged respectively in terms of contract, custom, negligence and conspiracy to defraud. The district judge considered each of the alleged causes of action and demonstrated its insufficiency. The appeal is utterly futile. How the appellant could have hoped to succeed is beyond comprehension. The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Foley, D.C., 128 F.Supp. 681.

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

PER CURIAM.

On April 25, 1951 the plaintiff purchased from the defendant a one year motor vehicle liability policy which enabled him to comply with the New York Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act then in force, Vehicle and Traffic Law, McK. Consol.Laws, c. 71, § 94 et seq. The limits of liability, as expressly stated in the policy, were $5,000 for each person killed or injured, with a maximum of $10,000 for all persons involved in a single accident. By an amendment to the statute effective July 1, 1951, Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 94-Z, the minimum policy limits required for proof of financial responsibility were increased to $10,000 and $20,000. In August 1951 the plaintiff’s automobile was involved in an accident. Thereafter the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles suspended the plaintiff’s license to operate a motor vehicle because his liability policy did not meet the financial responsibility requirements of the 1951 amendment. The present action sought damages from the defendant because it had not increased the limits of liability of the policy to satisfy the new requirements. The complaint contained four counts alleged respectively in terms of contract, custom, negligence and conspiracy to defraud. The district judge considered each of the alleged causes of action and demonstrated its insufficiency. The appeal is utterly futile. How the appellant could have hoped to succeed is beyond comprehension. The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Foley, D.C., 128 F.Supp. 681.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F.2d 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arvid-oksa-v-american-employers-insurance-company-ca2-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack