Crouse-Hinds Co. v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crouse-Hinds Co. v. Jones

66 A.D.2d 991, 411 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14351

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 66 A.D.2d 991 (Crouse-Hinds Co. v. Jones) 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

Crouse-Hinds Co. v. Jones, 66 A.D.2d 991, 411 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In affirming, we point out that the exclusions contained in the plaintiffs general liability insurance policy with appellant did not relieve appellant from its contractual duty to defend plaintiff in the third-party action against it or respond if plaintiff becomes liable for damages (see Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v Bakers Mut. Ins. Co. of N. Y., 45 NY2d 551). That being so, whether appellant’s disclaimer was untimely or not is irrelevant. The contract obligated appellant to represent plaintiff in the third-party action and answer for damages assessed against plaintiff to the limits of the policy. It could not legally disclaim that contract responsibility. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court-declaratory judgment.) Present-Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons and Dillon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In affirming, we point out that the exclusions contained in the plaintiffs general liability insurance policy with appellant did not relieve appellant from its contractual duty to defend plaintiff in the third-party action against it or respond if plaintiff becomes liable for damages (see Graphic Arts Mut. Ins. Co. v Bakers Mut. Ins. Co. of N. Y., 45 NY2d 551). That being so, whether appellant’s disclaimer was untimely or not is irrelevant. The contract obligated appellant to represent plaintiff in the third-party action and answer for damages assessed against plaintiff to the limits of the policy. It could not legally disclaim that contract responsibility. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court-declaratory judgment.) Present-Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons and Dillon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 991, 411 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crouse-hinds-co-v-jones-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack