Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Smith

New York Court of Appeals

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Smith

373 N.E.2d 289, 43 N.Y.2d 808, 402 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2585

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 373 N.E.2d 289 (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Smith) 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

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Smith, 373 N.E.2d 289, 43 N.Y.2d 808, 402 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2585 (N.Y. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed, with costs, on the memorandum at the Appellate Division (54 AD2d 958). In view of this disposition it is not necessary to consider the issue presented in Phoenix Ins. Co. v Guthiel (2 NY2d 584).

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke. Judges Gabrielli and Jones concur in the following memorandum: We concur in result only. Rather than requiring the courts below to strain their powers of imagination and to stretch familiar principles of law to reach an equitable result by finding that title has not passed (when in fact in any other setting it would be held that a sale had actually occurred and that title had passed), we would overrule the plurality opinion in Phoenix Ins. Co. v Guthiel (2 NY2d 584). In our view where the insured is to be estopped from denying ownership and, as a result, is to be held liable, we would hold that the coverage under his policy should extend to such liability.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Order affirmed, with costs, on the memorandum at the Appellate Division (54 AD2d 958). In view of this disposition it is not necessary to consider the issue presented in Phoenix Ins. Co. v Guthiel (2 NY2d 584).

Concur: Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke. Judges Gabrielli and Jones concur in the following memorandum: We concur in result only. Rather than requiring the courts below to strain their powers of imagination and to stretch familiar principles of law to reach an equitable result by finding that title has not passed (when in fact in any other setting it would be held that a sale had actually occurred and that title had passed), we would overrule the plurality opinion in Phoenix Ins. Co. v Guthiel (2 NY2d 584). In our view where the insured is to be estopped from denying ownership and, as a result, is to be held liable, we would hold that the coverage under his policy should extend to such liability.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 N.E.2d 289, 43 N.Y.2d 808, 402 N.Y.S.2d 395, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-accident-indemnity-co-v-smith-ny-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack