The London Assurance v. Bigeleisen

New Jersey Court of Chancery

The London Assurance v. Bigeleisen

36 A.2d 766, 134 N.J. Eq. 574, 1944 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 108, 33 Backes 574

CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

DecidedJanuary 7, 1944

DocketDocket 149/536

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.2d 766 (The London Assurance v. Bigeleisen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The London Assurance v. Bigeleisen, 36 A.2d 766, 134 N.J. Eq. 574, 1944 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 108, 33 Backes 574 (N.J. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

This matter came before me on a motion to strike out the bill of complaint and dissolve the restraining order.

The complainant, a fire insurance company, filed the bill of complaint which is in the nature of a bill of interpleader. It appears that the insurance company issued a policy to the defendants and while the policy was in force the premises of the defendants were damaged by fire. Complainant established its liability at the sum of $1,907.54. Various customers had clothing and other property in the store of the defendants and have made claims for damages. Complainant alleges that it desires to interplead in order to avoid conflicting claims and a multiplicity of suits. Defendants had instituted *Page 575 an action at law against the complainant which action was restrained pending the return of the order to show cause.

Solicitor of defendants argues that by the terms of the policy complainant is not liable to the customers of the defendants and that the liability of the insurance company runs only to the defendants.

I am satisfied that complainant never intended to insure the customers of the defendants and that the said customers have no beneficial interest in the contract. See Crown Fabrics Corp. v.Northern Assurance Co., Ltd., 124 N.J. Law 27. I will, therefore, advise a decree dismissing the bill of complaint and dissolving the restraint.

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

This matter came before me on a motion to strike out the bill of complaint and dissolve the restraining order.

The complainant, a fire insurance company, filed the bill of complaint which is in the nature of a bill of interpleader. It appears that the insurance company issued a policy to the defendants and while the policy was in force the premises of the defendants were damaged by fire. Complainant established its liability at the sum of $1,907.54. Various customers had clothing and other property in the store of the defendants and have made claims for damages. Complainant alleges that it desires to interplead in order to avoid conflicting claims and a multiplicity of suits. Defendants had instituted *Page 575 an action at law against the complainant which action was restrained pending the return of the order to show cause.

Solicitor of defendants argues that by the terms of the policy complainant is not liable to the customers of the defendants and that the liability of the insurance company runs only to the defendants.

I am satisfied that complainant never intended to insure the customers of the defendants and that the said customers have no beneficial interest in the contract. See Crown Fabrics Corp. v.Northern Assurance Co., Ltd., 124 N.J. Law 27. I will, therefore, advise a decree dismissing the bill of complaint and dissolving the restraint.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.2d 766, 134 N.J. Eq. 574, 1944 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 108, 33 Backes 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-london-assurance-v-bigeleisen-njch-1944.