Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Logan

88 A.D.2d 971, 451 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17345
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 21, 1982
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 971 (Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Logan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Logan, 88 A.D.2d 971, 451 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17345 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

— In an action for a declaratory judgment to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under an insurance policy, the parties cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Beisheim, J.), entered April 6, 1981, which denied their motion and cross motion for summary judgment. Order modified, on the law, by deleting the provision which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and substituting therefor a provision granting said motion and declaring that the plaintiff is not required to defend and indemnify defendant, its insured, in connection with the underlying negligence action. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Defendant’s policy obligated plaintiff to defend and indemnify the insured with respect to accidents resulting in bodily injury caused by an “occurrence and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use * * * of an owned automobile”. Here, the injury resulted from a fall in an icy parking lot. It neither arose from the intrinsic nature of the motor vehicle, as such, nor did the vehicle itself produce the injury (Matter of Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. [Gholson], 71 AD2d 1004; Gering v Merchants Mut. Ins., Co., 75 AD2d 321). The use of the motor vehicle must be the proximate cause of the injury in the underlying action to come within the ambit of the “use or operation” clause (United Servs. Auto. Assn, v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 75 AD2d 1022). Titone, J. P., Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Republic Long Island, Inc. v. Andrew J. Vanacore, Inc.
29 A.D.3d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Yodice
276 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Eagle Insurance v. Butts
269 A.D.2d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. DeMaio
259 A.D.2d 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Walton v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
666 N.E.2d 1046 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)
Walton v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
218 A.D.2d 858 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
In re the Arbitration between New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance & Hayden
209 A.D.2d 927 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Sea Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co.
849 F. Supp. 221 (S.D. New York, 1994)
Wagenman v. State Farm Insurance
726 F. Supp. 1239 (D. Utah, 1989)
Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. St. Barnabas Hospital
145 A.D.2d 314 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Duroseau v. Town of Hempstead
117 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Duroseau v. Town of Hempstead
124 Misc. 2d 244 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)
Farmers Fire Insurance v. Kingsbury
118 Misc. 2d 735 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 A.D.2d 971, 451 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumbermens-mutual-casualty-co-v-logan-nyappdiv-1982.