Forster v. Insurance Co. of North America

E.D. New York

Forster v. Insurance Co. of North America

48 F. Supp. 1023, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3011

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedMarch 1, 1943

DocketNo. 3090

StatusPublished

This text of 48 F. Supp. 1023 (Forster v. Insurance Co. of North America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Forster v. Insurance Co. of North America, 48 F. Supp. 1023, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3011 (E.D.N.Y. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

BYERS, District. Judge.

The plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings in an action in which he seeks to recover a substantial sum of money for premiums paid by him under open policies of Marine and War Risk Insurance, on the theory that they were paid under a mistake of fact as to the coverage of the policies with reference to the various shipments declared thereunder.

Assuming for present purposes that the proper construction of the contract is a mixed question of fact and law, a reading of the depositions upon which plaintiff relies discloses that at least one risk, such as those which form the basis of the plaintiff’s claim, was proved as a loss and paid as such. The testimony of the plaintiff’s broker, Rubenstein, is consistent with an understanding on the part of the plaintiff of the precise nature of the coverage and his payment of premiums under the respective declarations.

In other words, the issues of fact are not so plainly in the plaintiff’s favor 6that the granting of this motion could be justified by any process of reasoning known to me.

Motion denied. Settle order.

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

BYERS, District. Judge.

The plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings in an action in which he seeks to recover a substantial sum of money for premiums paid by him under open policies of Marine and War Risk Insurance, on the theory that they were paid under a mistake of fact as to the coverage of the policies with reference to the various shipments declared thereunder.

Assuming for present purposes that the proper construction of the contract is a mixed question of fact and law, a reading of the depositions upon which plaintiff relies discloses that at least one risk, such as those which form the basis of the plaintiff’s claim, was proved as a loss and paid as such. The testimony of the plaintiff’s broker, Rubenstein, is consistent with an understanding on the part of the plaintiff of the precise nature of the coverage and his payment of premiums under the respective declarations.

In other words, the issues of fact are not so plainly in the plaintiff’s favor 6that the granting of this motion could be justified by any process of reasoning known to me.

Motion denied. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 F. Supp. 1023, 1943 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forster-v-insurance-co-of-north-america-nyed-1943.