Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance v. General Adjustment Bureau

New York Court of Appeals

Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance v. General Adjustment Bureau

164 N.E. 890, 250 N.Y. 157, 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 996

DecidedDecember 31, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 164 N.E. 890 (Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance v. General Adjustment Bureau) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance v. General Adjustment Bureau, 164 N.E. 890, 250 N.Y. 157, 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 996 (N.Y. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Held, the dismissal of the complaint was error.

There being testimony from which the jury might infer lack of diligence on the part of the defendant’s agent, there was also testimony sufficient to support a recovery. If certain items in the proofs of loss presented by the insured to the insurer and upon which the loss was adjusted were largely overvalued, prima facie the plaintiff suffered injury. If in fact the adjusted loss did not exceed the fire loss because of undervaluation of other items, the burden was on the defendant to show that fact.

*159 The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified by striking out the direction for a dismissal of the complaint and by granting a new trial and as so modified affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division to abide the event.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

Held, the dismissal of the complaint was error.

There being testimony from which the jury might infer lack of diligence on the part of the defendant’s agent, there was also testimony sufficient to support a recovery. If certain items in the proofs of loss presented by the insured to the insurer and upon which the loss was adjusted were largely overvalued, prima facie the plaintiff suffered injury. If in fact the adjusted loss did not exceed the fire loss because of undervaluation of other items, the burden was on the defendant to show that fact.

*159 The judgment of the Appellate Division should be modified by striking out the direction for a dismissal of the complaint and by granting a new trial and as so modified affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division to abide the event.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 N.E. 890, 250 N.Y. 157, 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/globe-rutgers-fire-insurance-v-general-adjustment-bureau-ny-1928.