Rieske v. Alliance Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rieske v. Alliance Insurance

242 A.D. 35, 273 N.Y.S. 18, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5988

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

DecidedJune 27, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D. 35 (Rieske v. Alliance 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

Rieske v. Alliance Insurance, 242 A.D. 35, 273 N.Y.S. 18, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The policy of insurance involved in this case was a transportation policy and not a general fire policy. It was an essential condition of liability that the patterns insured against the risk of fire should be “ in due course of transit.” As the patterns were not in course of transit when the fire occurred, no liability [36]*36under the policy attached. While the rider extended the risk so as to include loss by fire even if on the premises of the insured, it in no way obviated the limitation of the risk to occasions when the patterns were “ in due course of transit.”

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Finding of fact No. 9, in the decision, and conclusion of law No. 1 disapproved and reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

The policy of insurance involved in this case was a transportation policy and not a general fire policy. It was an essential condition of liability that the patterns insured against the risk of fire should be “ in due course of transit.” As the patterns were not in course of transit when the fire occurred, no liability [36]*36under the policy attached. While the rider extended the risk so as to include loss by fire even if on the premises of the insured, it in no way obviated the limitation of the risk to occasions when the patterns were “ in due course of transit.”

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Judgment reversed on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. Finding of fact No. 9, in the decision, and conclusion of law No. 1 disapproved and reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D. 35, 273 N.Y.S. 18, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rieske-v-alliance-insurance-nyappdiv-1934.