Cargo v. New York Marine & General Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cargo v. New York Marine & General Insurance

40 A.D.3d 444, 834 N.Y.S.2d 659

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

DecidedMay 22, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.3d 444 (Cargo v. New York Marine & General 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

Cargo v. New York Marine & General Insurance, 40 A.D.3d 444, 834 N.Y.S.2d 659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner [445]*445Kornreich, J.), entered July 31, 2006, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiff additional insured is entitled to the full benefits of the insurance contract issued by defendant insurer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Under New York law, “each individual additional insured . . . must be treated as if separately covered by the policy and indeed as if he . . . had a separate policy of his own” (Greaves v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 5 NY2d 120, 124 [1959]), even where, as here, the policy is issued based on a material misrepresentation by the primary insured (see BMW Fin. Servs. v Hassan, 273 AD2d 428 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 767 [2000]). Accordingly, plaintiff additional insured was entitled to coverage under the subject policy, notwithstanding the circumstance that the policy had been issued based upon a misrepresentation by the primary insured and was void as to that party. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner [445]*445Kornreich, J.), entered July 31, 2006, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment declaring that plaintiff additional insured is entitled to the full benefits of the insurance contract issued by defendant insurer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Under New York law, “each individual additional insured . . . must be treated as if separately covered by the policy and indeed as if he . . . had a separate policy of his own” (Greaves v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 5 NY2d 120, 124 [1959]), even where, as here, the policy is issued based on a material misrepresentation by the primary insured (see BMW Fin. Servs. v Hassan, 273 AD2d 428 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 767 [2000]). Accordingly, plaintiff additional insured was entitled to coverage under the subject policy, notwithstanding the circumstance that the policy had been issued based upon a misrepresentation by the primary insured and was void as to that party. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 444, 834 N.Y.S.2d 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cargo-v-new-york-marine-general-insurance-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack