Egloff v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Egloff v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.

29 A.D.2d 1048, 289 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4268

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

DecidedApril 9, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.2d 1048 (Egloff v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.) 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

Egloff v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 29 A.D.2d 1048, 289 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, without costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: The accident occurred October 24, 1965, and at that time plaintiff heard Mrs. Doering, the owner and operator of the other vehicle, tell a police officer that she was insured by the Travelers Insurance Company. On May 19, 1966 plaintiff began an action against Mrs. Doering to recover damages for his injuries; and on June 9, 1966 he learned that the insurance on Mrs. Doering’s vehicle was cancelled three weeks before the accident. A week later he notified appellant MVAIC of his intention to file claim against it, seven and one-half months after the accident. The court below held that as a matter of law this notice was “ as soon as practicable ” within the indorsement provision of plaintiff’s insurance policy. On the contrary, we hold that a question of fact is presented which should be submitted to a jury (Matter of Haas v. MVAIC 29 A D 2d 447). (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Trial Term vacating stay of arbitration.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Del Vecchio, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, without costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: The accident occurred October 24, 1965, and at that time plaintiff heard Mrs. Doering, the owner and operator of the other vehicle, tell a police officer that she was insured by the Travelers Insurance Company. On May 19, 1966 plaintiff began an action against Mrs. Doering to recover damages for his injuries; and on June 9, 1966 he learned that the insurance on Mrs. Doering’s vehicle was cancelled three weeks before the accident. A week later he notified appellant MVAIC of his intention to file claim against it, seven and one-half months after the accident. The court below held that as a matter of law this notice was “ as soon as practicable ” within the indorsement provision of plaintiff’s insurance policy. On the contrary, we hold that a question of fact is presented which should be submitted to a jury (Matter of Haas v. MVAIC 29 A D 2d 447). (Appeal from judgment and order of Erie Trial Term vacating stay of arbitration.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Del Vecchio, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 1048, 289 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/egloff-v-motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack