Getzoff v. Piedmont Fire Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Getzoff v. Piedmont Fire Insurance

203 Misc. 267, 122 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1808

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 29, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 Misc. 267 (Getzoff v. Piedmont Fire Insurance) 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

Getzoff v. Piedmont Fire Insurance, 203 Misc. 267, 122 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1808 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It was error to hold that the loss in question did not come within the provision for comprehensive coverage. The stone which fell from a truck and ultimately came in contact with the insured vehicle was a 66 falling object ” within the fair intendment of the policy. Any doubt as to the meaning of the language of the policy must be resolved in favor of the assured (Hartol Products Corp v. Prudential Ins. Co., 290 N. Y. 44).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts and new trial granted, with $30 costs to plaintiff to abide the event.

Walsh, Golden and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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