Blasco Supply, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

102 A.D.2d 859, 476 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19061
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 18, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 102 A.D.2d 859 (Blasco Supply, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.) 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
Blasco Supply, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 102 A.D.2d 859, 476 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19061 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to declare that defendant Travelers Indemnity Company is obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff Blasco Supply, Inc., in an underlying personal injury action brought by the codefendants against the plaintiff, defendant Travelers Indemnity Company appeals from (1) an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wager, J.), entered June 7,1983, which denied Traveler’s motion for summary judgment, granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, and adjudged that Travelers is obligated to defend Blasco in the underlying personal injury action, and (2) an order of the same court, dated July 14, 1983, which granted plaintiff’s motion to resettle the order and judgment entered June 7, 1983 to provide that Travelers Indemnity Company is obligated to pay any judgment against Blasco in the personal injury action up to the policy limits, if it is determined that Blasco owned the motor vehicle involved in that action. 11 Order and judgment entered June 7,1983 and order dated July 14, 1983 affirmed, with one bill of costs. 11 Special Term correctly determined that under the comprehensive automobile liability policy issued by Travelers Indemnity Company, providing for an end-of-term audit premium, coverage was afforded to any owned automobile whether or not listed in the policy declarations. 11 Under said policy of insurance, the insurance carrier is required to defend an insured in a negligence action wherein it is claimed that the insured, though not the registered owner, was the true owner and is therefore responsible for the damages suffered by plaintiffs in the underlying action. If it is established in said action that the offending automobile is indeed owned by the insured, the carrier would be required to pay up to the policy limits any amount assessed as damages against the insured (see Green Bus Lines v Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co., 74 AD2d 136, 141, overruled on other grounds Insurance Co. of North Amer. v Dayton Tool & Die Works, 57 NY2d 489). Rubin, J. P., Boyers, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dairy Maid Food Corp. v. Home Indemnity Co.
135 A.D.2d 774 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 A.D.2d 859, 476 N.Y.S.2d 638, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blasco-supply-inc-v-travelers-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-1984.