Conners Marine Co. v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins.

S.D. New York

Conners Marine Co. v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins.

16 F. Supp. 626, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1836

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMay 21, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 F. Supp. 626 (Conners Marine Co. v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conners Marine Co. v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins., 16 F. Supp. 626, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1836 (S.D.N.Y. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

KNOX, District Judge.

The motion to dismiss the complaint for its failure to state a cause of action must he sustained. In my opinion, pontoons cannot properly be included in the category either of hulls and barges, or of hulls and cargoes. A pontoon falls within an entirely different designation. Although water borne, it is quite distinct from a hull, barge, or cargo, in both functions and reality. Furthermore, as I read the policy of insurance, it does not cover the loss which came to plaintiff as a result of a towage contract. Towage is not included within the liability of the assured “as owners, managing owners, operatives and/or operating agents, charterers, carriers, warehousemen, stevedores, wharfingers, forwarders, or freighters as imposed by law.” Each of the enumerated capacities is without the inclusiveness of a tow-age contract.

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

KNOX, District Judge.

The motion to dismiss the complaint for its failure to state a cause of action must he sustained. In my opinion, pontoons cannot properly be included in the category either of hulls and barges, or of hulls and cargoes. A pontoon falls within an entirely different designation. Although water borne, it is quite distinct from a hull, barge, or cargo, in both functions and reality. Furthermore, as I read the policy of insurance, it does not cover the loss which came to plaintiff as a result of a towage contract. Towage is not included within the liability of the assured “as owners, managing owners, operatives and/or operating agents, charterers, carriers, warehousemen, stevedores, wharfingers, forwarders, or freighters as imposed by law.” Each of the enumerated capacities is without the inclusiveness of a tow-age contract.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F. Supp. 626, 1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conners-marine-co-v-northwestern-fire-marine-ins-nysd-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack