Moore v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moore v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

30 A.D.2d 560, 292 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3944

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

DecidedMay 20, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 560 (Moore 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

Moore v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 30 A.D.2d 560, 292 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaration that, inter alia, defendant is required, pursuant to its insurance contract with plaintiff’s employer, S & W Sales Co., Inc., to provide a defense for him in an action commenced by one August Becker, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 11, 1967 and made after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and it is adjudged that defendant is under no duty to provide plaintiff with a defense, or to pay any judgment against him, in the action commenced by Becker (Bundschu v. Travelers Ins. Co., 22 A D 2d 907). The question of whether Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Company must continue its defense of the present plaintiff in the Becker action is not now before us. However, if it were, we would hold on this record that Cosmopolitan is obligated to continue to defend him in that action and to pay any judgment therein recovered against him, up to the limit of the coverage in its policy. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaration that, inter alia, defendant is required, pursuant to its insurance contract with plaintiff’s employer, S & W Sales Co., Inc., to provide a defense for him in an action commenced by one August Becker, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 11, 1967 and made after a nonjury trial, in favor of plaintiff. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and it is adjudged that defendant is under no duty to provide plaintiff with a defense, or to pay any judgment against him, in the action commenced by Becker (Bundschu v. Travelers Ins. Co., 22 A D 2d 907). The question of whether Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Company must continue its defense of the present plaintiff in the Becker action is not now before us. However, if it were, we would hold on this record that Cosmopolitan is obligated to continue to defend him in that action and to pay any judgment therein recovered against him, up to the limit of the coverage in its policy. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 560, 292 N.Y.S.2d 991, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-fidelity-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1968.