Schnall v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Schnall v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.

142 Misc. 500, 254 N.Y.S. 582, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 914

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 142 Misc. 500 (Schnall v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schnall v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 142 Misc. 500, 254 N.Y.S. 582, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant assumed the defense of the actions against the assured with knowledge of the assured’s non-compliance with the condition of the policy requiring written notice of the accident. The record contains no evidence that the defendant assumed the defense in ignorance of the fact that the assured had been present at the time of the accident. A waiver of the breach of the condition requiring written notice was thus established, and the. subsequent stipulation of non-waiver unless shown by the defendant to be supported by consideration was ineffectual to restore the defendant’s privilege to disclaim liability on that ground. (269 Canal Street Corp. v. Zurich G. A. & L. Ins. Co., Ltd., 226 App. Div. 516; affd., 252 N. Y. 603.)

Judgments reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

All concur; present, Lydon, Frankenthaler and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant assumed the defense of the actions against the assured with knowledge of the assured’s non-compliance with the condition of the policy requiring written notice of the accident. The record contains no evidence that the defendant assumed the defense in ignorance of the fact that the assured had been present at the time of the accident. A waiver of the breach of the condition requiring written notice was thus established, and the. subsequent stipulation of non-waiver unless shown by the defendant to be supported by consideration was ineffectual to restore the defendant’s privilege to disclaim liability on that ground. (269 Canal Street Corp. v. Zurich G. A. & L. Ins. Co., Ltd., 226 App. Div. 516; affd., 252 N. Y. 603.)

Judgments reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

All concur; present, Lydon, Frankenthaler and Untermyer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 Misc. 500, 254 N.Y.S. 582, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schnall-v-london-guarantee-accident-co-nyappterm-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack