Mead v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mead v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

155 A.D.2d 896, 547 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14732

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 896 (Mead v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.) 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

Mead v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 155 A.D.2d 896, 547 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: The insurance policy issued by defendant to M.C.A., Inc. does not insure Karen Mule for her liability arising out of the operation of her father’s automobile, even if she is considered to have been in the employ of M.C.A. and engaged in its business at the time of the automobile accident. The comprehensive automobile liability insurance does not insure "employees” and the comprehensive general liability insurance, which does insure employees, excludes from coverage liability arising out of the operation of automobiles in the course of employment. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: The insurance policy issued by defendant to M.C.A., Inc. does not insure Karen Mule for her liability arising out of the operation of her father’s automobile, even if she is considered to have been in the employ of M.C.A. and engaged in its business at the time of the automobile accident. The comprehensive automobile liability insurance does not insure "employees” and the comprehensive general liability insurance, which does insure employees, excludes from coverage liability arising out of the operation of automobiles in the course of employment. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 896, 547 N.Y.S.2d 491, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mead-v-fidelity-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1989.