Hallas v. North River Insurance
James Hallas, Appellant-Respondent v. North River Insurance Company of New York, Respondent-Appellant James Hallas, Appellant-Respondent v. Cosmopolitan Mutual Fire Insurance Company of New York
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The evidence compels the conclusion that the loss sued on had its origin in an explosion and that any fire covered by the policies in suit was a fire which followed the explosion. Plaintiff, therefore, had the burden under the policies of showing the extent of any covered loss occasioned by fire as distinguished from any excluded loss caused by the explosion (Nasello v. Home Ins. Co., 277 N. Y. 632 ). Plaintiff failed to do this and quite clearly would not be able to do it on another trial. For failure and inability to sustain his burden of proof, the complaint should be dismissed.
We think a further ground requiring dismissal of the complaint was plaintiff’s willful refusal to answer relevant questions on his examination by defendants. That refusal was a breach of one of the substantial conditions of the policies.
The order, so far as appealed from by defendants, should be reversed and their motions to dismiss the complaint granted, with costs.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Callahan, J.
(dissenting). I dissent and vote to affirm on the ground that there is a question for the jury with regard to the extent and proximate cause of the damage. Nor in my opinion can it be said as a matter of law on this record that plaintiff was guilty of willful refusal to answer relevant questions on his examination by defendants. It is, therefore, improper to dismiss the present complaint. However, the trial court was justified in its discretion in setting aside the verdict of the jury on the ground that it was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Callahan, J., dissents in opinion.
Order, so far as appealed from by the defendants, reversed and their motions to dismiss the complaint granted, with costs. Settle order on notice.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 16 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals2
- Federal District Courts2
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts9
- State Trial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Kisting v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company
- Monarch Industrial Corp. v. American Motorists Insurance
- Aetna Insurance Company v. Getchell Steel Treating Company, Inc., Commercial Union Assurance Company, Ltd. v. H & L Corporation
- Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Boyd
- Hudson Tire Mart, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company
- Lentini Bros. Moving & Storage Co. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n
Most recent
- Averbuch v. Home Insurance
- Williams v. American Home Assurance
- Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Boyd
- Dyno-Bite, Inc. v. Travelers Co.
- Lentini Bros. Moving & Storage Co. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n
- Lentini Bros. Moving & Storage Co. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.