Firemen's Fund Insurance v. Pennant Finance Corp.

124 Misc. 369, 207 N.Y.S. 792, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 635
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 1925
StatusPublished

This text of 124 Misc. 369 (Firemen's Fund Insurance v. Pennant Finance Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Firemen's Fund Insurance v. Pennant Finance Corp., 124 Misc. 369, 207 N.Y.S. 792, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

Guy, J.:

Action 190 by Firemen’s Fund Insurance Company as plaintiff, to recover forty-two dollars premium for additional indorsement dated July 27, 1923, on a taxicab policy No. 662,558. Defense, general denial.

Action 191 by Greene & Goetschius, Inc., as plaintiff, to recover $975.60 for premium for additional indorsements dated September 8, 10 and 14, 1923, on the same policy. Defense, general denial.

Action 192 by Greene & Goetschius, Inc., as plaintiff, to recover $659.20 for premium for additional indorsements dated October 9, 11,17, 18, 22, 24 and November 19,1923, on same policy. Defense, general denial.

Action 193 by Greene & Goetschius, Inc., plaintiff, to recover $845.52 for premium for additional indorsement dated December 1, 1923, on same policy. Defense, general denial.

Each indorsement covered separate and distinct taxicabs.

Where different taxicabs are insured for two different beneficiaries as additional insurance under several and separate indorsements on a policy, each indorsement constitutes a separate contract of insurance. (4 Joyce Ins. [2d ed.] § 2485a; Corporation of the London Assurance v. Paterson, Downing & Co., 106 Ga. 538, 541-543; Donley v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 184 N. Y. 107, 111.)

The fact that all the causes of action could, since the Civil Practice Act, be united in one complaint in the Supreme Court, provided that each indorsement was pleaded as a separate cause of action, does not defeat the assured’s right to plead each indorsement as a separate cause of action in the 'Municipal Court. (Akely v. Kinnicutt, 238 N. Y. 466, 471, 477.)

Judgments reversed and new trials ordered, with ten dollars costs in each case to appellants to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.

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

Related

Donley v. . Glens Falls Ins. Co.
76 N.E. 914 (New York Court of Appeals, 1906)
Akely v. . Kinnicutt
144 N.E. 682 (New York Court of Appeals, 1924)
Corp. of the London Assurance v. Paterson, Downing & Co.
32 S.E. 650 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 Misc. 369, 207 N.Y.S. 792, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/firemens-fund-insurance-v-pennant-finance-corp-nyappterm-1925.