Bekermus v. State Farm Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bekermus v. State Farm Mutual Insurance

154 A.D.2d 323, 545 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12251

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

DecidedOctober 2, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.D.2d 323 (Bekermus v. State Farm Mutual Insurance) 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

Bekermus v. State Farm Mutual Insurance, 154 A.D.2d 323, 545 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover the proceeds of the collision provision of an automobile insurance policy, the defendant insurer appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered July 20, 1988, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record, including, inter alia, the plaintiff insured’s affidavit, the admissions in the defendant’s answer, and the report of the defendant’s expert, clearly indicate that on January 8, 1987, the plaintiff’s automobile struck an object in the road, causing a puncture in the oil pan, rapid loss of motor oil, and immediate engine seizure. Under these circumstances, as a matter of law, the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the collision provision of her automobile insurance policy. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover the proceeds of the collision provision of an automobile insurance policy, the defendant insurer appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered July 20, 1988, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The record, including, inter alia, the plaintiff insured’s affidavit, the admissions in the defendant’s answer, and the report of the defendant’s expert, clearly indicate that on January 8, 1987, the plaintiff’s automobile struck an object in the road, causing a puncture in the oil pan, rapid loss of motor oil, and immediate engine seizure. Under these circumstances, as a matter of law, the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the collision provision of her automobile insurance policy. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 323, 545 N.Y.S.2d 799, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bekermus-v-state-farm-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1989.