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

New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 19, 1977·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

373 N.E.2d 289 (Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related