Osterhout v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osterhout v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

91 A.D.2d 1172, 459 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16517

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A.D.2d 1172 (Osterhout v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity 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

Osterhout v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 91 A.D.2d 1172, 459 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment reversed, without costs, and judgment granted in favor of defendant in accordance with memorandum. All concur, Simons, J. P., not participating. Memorandum: The judgment is reversed and judgment is granted in favor of the defendant declaring that it is not obligated to defend the plaintiff in a personal injury action that arose out of the operation of a snowmobile. The policy of insurance provides that it does not apply to “the operation or use of any snowmobile or trailer designed for use therewith”. We accord this phrase its natural meaning and we decline to accept the strained construction advanced by plaintiff. The phrase “designed for use therewith” obviously refers to a trailer designed for use with a snowmobile. The phrase does not refer to a snowmobile or trailer designed for use with a “racing * * * contest,” which is the subject of the exclusion in the preceding, separately numbered clause. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, J. O’C. Conway, J. — declaratory judgment.) Present — Simons, J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

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

— Judgment reversed, without costs, and judgment granted in favor of defendant in accordance with memorandum. All concur, Simons, J. P., not participating. Memorandum: The judgment is reversed and judgment is granted in favor of the defendant declaring that it is not obligated to defend the plaintiff in a personal injury action that arose out of the operation of a snowmobile. The policy of insurance provides that it does not apply to “the operation or use of any snowmobile or trailer designed for use therewith”. We accord this phrase its natural meaning and we decline to accept the strained construction advanced by plaintiff. The phrase “designed for use therewith” obviously refers to a trailer designed for use with a snowmobile. The phrase does not refer to a snowmobile or trailer designed for use with a “racing * * * contest,” which is the subject of the exclusion in the preceding, separately numbered clause. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, J. O’C. Conway, J. — declaratory judgment.) Present — Simons, J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Boomer and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 1172, 459 N.Y.S.2d 141, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osterhout-v-hartford-accident-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-1983.