Thomas v. Federal Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thomas v. Federal Mutual Insurance

45 A.D.2d 886, 358 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4372

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.2d 886 (Thomas v. Federal Mutual 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

Thomas v. Federal Mutual Insurance, 45 A.D.2d 886, 358 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action against a motor vehicle liability insurer, by one judgment against the insured, for personal injuries remains unsatisfied and who is the insured’s assignee, to recover (1) the applicable monetary limit of the coverage and (2) an additional amount for bad faith failure to defend [887]*887the insured, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 2, 1973, which denied his motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim and affirmative defenses. Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to modify the order to the extent of granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses, and to affirm the order as so modified, with the following memorandum: The affirmative defenses interposed bear no relationship to plaintiff’s contract action for defendant’s alleged bad faith refusal to defend its insured (plaintiff’s assignor), and accordingly it was error not to have dismissed the defenses.

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

In an action against a motor vehicle liability insurer, by one judgment against the insured, for personal injuries remains unsatisfied and who is the insured’s assignee, to recover (1) the applicable monetary limit of the coverage and (2) an additional amount for bad faith failure to defend [887]*887the insured, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 2, 1973, which denied his motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim and affirmative defenses. Order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur; Hopkins, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to modify the order to the extent of granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the affirmative defenses, and to affirm the order as so modified, with the following memorandum: The affirmative defenses interposed bear no relationship to plaintiff’s contract action for defendant’s alleged bad faith refusal to defend its insured (plaintiff’s assignor), and accordingly it was error not to have dismissed the defenses.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.2d 886, 358 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-federal-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1974.