Romanoff v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n of America

243 A.D. 725, 277 N.Y.S. 291
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 15, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 243 A.D. 725 (Romanoff v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n of America) 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
Romanoff v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n of America, 243 A.D. 725, 277 N.Y.S. 291 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Opinion

Action on a policy of insurance by the terms of which defendant agreed to insure the plaintiff against “ any one ” of several losses if such loss should be “ the direct and approximate result of and which is caused solely and exclusively by external, violent and accidental means.” One of the described losses was the loss of a leg. Appeal by plaintiff from an order setting aside a verdcit in his favor and granting a new trial. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. On February 10, 1932, while receiving an electrical baking treatment, two of plaintiff’s toes were burned. The following day one of the toes became infected. Later the infection became so acute that it was necessary to amputate the toe and subsequently to amputate the left leg above the knee. It is undisputed tha-t at the time he received the burn plaintiff was suffering from two active pre-existing diseases — diabetes and arterio-selerosis. The proof shows the burn would not have resulted in the loss of plaintiff’s leg if he had not been affected [726]*726with these diseases. Therefore, the loss of his leg was not the “ direct and approximate result ” of the burn, nor was it due “ solely and exclusively ” to the burn, and defendant was not liable under the terms of the policy. (Reynell v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 258 N. Y. 572; Silverstein v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 254 id. 81, 84; Smith v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 207 App. Div. 682; affd., 241 N. Y. 558; McMartin v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 264 id. 220.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

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

Related

Gulf Life Insurance Co. v. Braswell
112 S.E.2d 804 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Novice v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n of America
203 Misc. 830 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1953)
Browning v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.
72 P.2d 1060 (Utah Supreme Court, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D. 725, 277 N.Y.S. 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romanoff-v-commercial-travelers-mutual-accident-assn-of-america-nyappdiv-1935.