Henderson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Henderson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

434 N.E.2d 247, 55 N.Y.2d 947, 449 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3129

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 11, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 434 N.E.2d 247 (Henderson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) 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

Henderson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 434 N.E.2d 247, 55 N.Y.2d 947, 449 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3129 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff cites no provision of the fire insurance policy to call upon Aetna to indemnify or defend him against suit or claim, including, of course, one in the nature of Rezey’s counterclaim. The liability policy, also issued to plaintiff by Aetna, is not at issue as plaintiff did not assert any rights under it in his complaint:

As to plaintiff’s theory that Aetna had no right to sue in his name, plaintiff, by his amended complaint, conceded that defendant “chose to commence this action in the name of the plaintiff insured as was its right under the terms of the policy” (emphasis added). The defendant therefore can[949]*949not be faulted because Rezey elected to interpose his counterclaim. In sum, Aetna, in bringing the suit in plaintiff’s name, did no more than was authorized.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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