Remus v. Protective Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Remus v. Protective Indemnity Co.

257 A.D. 1033, 13 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8970

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

DecidedJune 28, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 1033 (Remus v. Protective 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

Remus v. Protective Indemnity Co., 257 A.D. 1033, 13 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Certain findings of fact modified and new finding [1034]*1034made. Memorandum: The court has found on sufficient evidence that the policy-on the date it became effective was not written in accordance with the instructions previously given on behalf of the insured to the defendant’s agent and that the insured previous to the plaintiff’s accident had no knowledge of the discrepancy and that before the accident the defendant had in no way waived the right to have the mistake corrected by reformation of the policy. The findings in the decision as now modified are in our opinion sustained by the evidence and the conclusions of law find full support in the facts found. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiffs in an action by judgment creditors under a liability insurance policy.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ. [170 Misc. 295.]

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Certain findings of fact modified and new finding [1034]*1034made. Memorandum: The court has found on sufficient evidence that the policy-on the date it became effective was not written in accordance with the instructions previously given on behalf of the insured to the defendant’s agent and that the insured previous to the plaintiff’s accident had no knowledge of the discrepancy and that before the accident the defendant had in no way waived the right to have the mistake corrected by reformation of the policy. The findings in the decision as now modified are in our opinion sustained by the evidence and the conclusions of law find full support in the facts found. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiffs in an action by judgment creditors under a liability insurance policy.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ. [170 Misc. 295.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 1033, 13 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remus-v-protective-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack