Colonial Cooperative Insurance v. Bailey

177 A.D.2d 966, 577 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15699

Opinions

Order affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it is not required to defend and indemnify its insured in the underlying personal injury action. Plaintiff urges that, as a matter of law, the incident resulted from the use or maintenance of a motorized vehicle and thus is within the policy exclusions. We disagree. A jury could find that the proximate cause of the fire was the negligent placement of a wood stove near a volatile substance or the act of Charles Bailey in throwing his gasoline-soaked jacket to the floor of the garage.

All concur, except Pine and Davis, JJ., who dissent and vote to reverse in the following Memorandum.

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

Colonial Cooperative Insurance v. Bailey, 177 A.D.2d 966, 577 N.Y.S.2d 1010, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

177 A.D.2d 966 (Colonial Cooperative Insurance v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Steir v. London Guarantee Accident Company
173 N.E. 873 (New York Court of Appeals, 1930)
Hill v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
211 A.D. 747 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
Steir v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.
227 A.D. 37 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1929)
Carrillo v. Kreckel
43 A.D.2d 499 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1974)