Calvert Insurance v. CIGNA Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calvert Insurance v. CIGNA Insurance

239 A.D.2d 243, 658 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5201

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

DecidedMay 15, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 243 (Calvert Insurance v. CIGNA 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

Calvert Insurance v. CIGNA Insurance, 239 A.D.2d 243, 658 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about July 3, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of declaring that defendant is not obligated to indemnify or defend its insured in the underlying tort action in Supreme Court, Kings County, and that plaintiff is obligated to defend and indemnify the same insured in that action and, except as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

The alleged assault on the infant plaintiff in the underlying tort action while a passenger on a school bus did not arise out of the use of that vehicle (see, Horney v Tisyl Taxi Corp., 93 AD2d 291). Recent judicial repudiation of the common carrier doctrine (see, Adams v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 NY2d 116) renders plaintiff’s reliance on earlier case law inappropriate (see, e.g., Green Bus Lines v Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp., 287 NY 309, 312). Nor does assault come within the coverage of defendant’s policy, which extends only to bodily injury "caused by an accident”, as that term is commonly construed in the context of an automobile insurance policy (Michaels v City of Buffalo, 85 NY2d 754, 758). We modify only to declare explicitly what is implied by Supreme Court’s disposition (see, Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, cert denied 371 US 901). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about July 3, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of declaring that defendant is not obligated to indemnify or defend its insured in the underlying tort action in Supreme Court, Kings County, and that plaintiff is obligated to defend and indemnify the same insured in that action and, except as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

The alleged assault on the infant plaintiff in the underlying tort action while a passenger on a school bus did not arise out of the use of that vehicle (see, Horney v Tisyl Taxi Corp., 93 AD2d 291). Recent judicial repudiation of the common carrier doctrine (see, Adams v New York City Tr. Auth., 88 NY2d 116) renders plaintiff’s reliance on earlier case law inappropriate (see, e.g., Green Bus Lines v Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp., 287 NY 309, 312). Nor does assault come within the coverage of defendant’s policy, which extends only to bodily injury "caused by an accident”, as that term is commonly construed in the context of an automobile insurance policy (Michaels v City of Buffalo, 85 NY2d 754, 758). We modify only to declare explicitly what is implied by Supreme Court’s disposition (see, Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334, cert denied 371 US 901). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 243, 658 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvert-insurance-v-cigna-insurance-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack