Hubert v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

New York Court of Appeals

Hubert v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

291 N.E.2d 724, 31 N.Y.2d 833, 339 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 962

DecidedNovember 30, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 291 N.E.2d 724 (Hubert v. Fireman's Fund Insurance) 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

Hubert v. Fireman's Fund Insurance, 291 N.E.2d 724, 31 N.Y.2d 833, 339 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 962 (N.Y. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as affirms the order and judgment which declares that the uninsured motorist provisions in the policy issued by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. obtain and, except as so modified, affirmed. Since the accident took place on a roadway immediately adjoining the insured premises, the exclusion in the homeowner’s policy issued by Boyal Globe and Newark Insurance Companies did not apply. That policy afforded complete coverage and it may not be said that there was no bodily injury liability insurance in force at the time of the accident. Moreover, the uninsured motorist endorsement to the Fireman’s policy did not relate to vehicles owned by the named insured. By this endorsement the insurer does not undertake to provide additional liability insurance, but merely agrees to pay to the named insured within the limits of the policy, whatever sum he is legally entitled to recover against an uninsured tort-feasor. Inasmuch as the alleged tort-feasor here was the named insured, we conclude that there is no basis upon which uninsured motorist coverage could be predicated.

Concur: Chief Judge Fued and Judges Burke, Scileph, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

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

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as affirms the order and judgment which declares that the uninsured motorist provisions in the policy issued by Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. obtain and, except as so modified, affirmed. Since the accident took place on a roadway immediately adjoining the insured premises, the exclusion in the homeowner’s policy issued by Boyal Globe and Newark Insurance Companies did not apply. That policy afforded complete coverage and it may not be said that there was no bodily injury liability insurance in force at the time of the accident. Moreover, the uninsured motorist endorsement to the Fireman’s policy did not relate to vehicles owned by the named insured. By this endorsement the insurer does not undertake to provide additional liability insurance, but merely agrees to pay to the named insured within the limits of the policy, whatever sum he is legally entitled to recover against an uninsured tort-feasor. Inasmuch as the alleged tort-feasor here was the named insured, we conclude that there is no basis upon which uninsured motorist coverage could be predicated.

Concur: Chief Judge Fued and Judges Burke, Scileph, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 N.E.2d 724, 31 N.Y.2d 833, 339 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubert-v-firemans-fund-insurance-ny-1972.