G. M. C. Process Corp. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

G. M. C. Process Corp. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.

15 A.D.2d 766, 224 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11348

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 766 (G. M. C. Process Corp. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.) 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

G. M. C. Process Corp. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 15 A.D.2d 766, 224 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

It is clear that both the issuer of the bond and the attorney who procured its issuance intended that the bond should cover only costs and so understood it. Their interpretation is not negatived with any certainty by the bond form itself, In the circumstances it was incumbent on plaintiff to show that its interpretation of the bond provisions and its reliance thereon were reasonably justified, No reasonable basis was shown, however, upon which plaintiff could have construed the bond in question as undertaking to indemnify it for an unspecified and unlimited amount of damages and lost profits. Moreover, there is evidence that could be susceptible of the inference that plaintiff by its attorney was aware of the understanding of defendant and the attorney who procured the issuance of the bond, but designedly chose to ignore it. Settle order on notice. Defendant’s appeal from the order dated June 9, 1961 denying its motion to set aside the decision dated May 17, 1961 and to dismiss the complaint is dismissed, without costs. Concur—■ Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

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

It is clear that both the issuer of the bond and the attorney who procured its issuance intended that the bond should cover only costs and so understood it. Their interpretation is not negatived with any certainty by the bond form itself, In the circumstances it was incumbent on plaintiff to show that its interpretation of the bond provisions and its reliance thereon were reasonably justified, No reasonable basis was shown, however, upon which plaintiff could have construed the bond in question as undertaking to indemnify it for an unspecified and unlimited amount of damages and lost profits. Moreover, there is evidence that could be susceptible of the inference that plaintiff by its attorney was aware of the understanding of defendant and the attorney who procured the issuance of the bond, but designedly chose to ignore it. Settle order on notice. Defendant’s appeal from the order dated June 9, 1961 denying its motion to set aside the decision dated May 17, 1961 and to dismiss the complaint is dismissed, without costs. Concur—■ Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 766, 224 N.Y.S.2d 540, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-m-c-process-corp-v-united-states-fidelity-and-guaranty-co-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack