Margotta v. American Motorists Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Margotta v. American Motorists Insurance

283 A.D. 959, 130 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5915

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 10, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D. 959 (Margotta v. American Motorists Insurance) 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

Margotta v. American Motorists Insurance, 283 A.D. 959, 130 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Respondent is the insured under a policy of insurance issued by appellant. Respondent’s automobile was damaged by upset, but the policy does not cover such damage. In this action respondent sues to recover upon an alleged agreement made with appellant’s adjuster, under which respondent agreed to surrender his car to appellant and furnish appellant with verified proofs of loss and to be paid the amount agreed upon in settlement. After performance by respondent, appellant notified respondent that the policy does not cover the loss. Meanwhile, the car had been sold by a third party to whom it had been delivered by respondent. The proceeds of sale have been tendered to both respondent and appellant, but each refuses acceptance. Respondent had a verdict for the value of the ear in the amount agreed upon. Judgment entered on the verdict reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Without the hearsay evidence as to what the appellant had agreed to, the contract on which respondent recovered was not proved. Without that evidence the proof was not sufficient to establish that the adjuster had authority to make the agreement. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

Respondent is the insured under a policy of insurance issued by appellant. Respondent’s automobile was damaged by upset, but the policy does not cover such damage. In this action respondent sues to recover upon an alleged agreement made with appellant’s adjuster, under which respondent agreed to surrender his car to appellant and furnish appellant with verified proofs of loss and to be paid the amount agreed upon in settlement. After performance by respondent, appellant notified respondent that the policy does not cover the loss. Meanwhile, the car had been sold by a third party to whom it had been delivered by respondent. The proceeds of sale have been tendered to both respondent and appellant, but each refuses acceptance. Respondent had a verdict for the value of the ear in the amount agreed upon. Judgment entered on the verdict reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Without the hearsay evidence as to what the appellant had agreed to, the contract on which respondent recovered was not proved. Without that evidence the proof was not sufficient to establish that the adjuster had authority to make the agreement. Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 959, 130 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margotta-v-american-motorists-insurance-nyappdiv-1954.