TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lieberman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

George Lieberman, Doing Business under the Name of George's Service Station v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company

Lieberman v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 284 A.D. 1051 (1954)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 13, 1954
Citations
284 A.D. 1051135 N.Y.S.2d 8501954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4539

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In this action to declare the rights of the parties under a contract of insurance issued by defendant to plaintiff, defendant appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court has not jurisdiction of the subject matter and on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff operates a gas station in Nassau County. On August 19, 1952, an automobile owned by Bungalow Bar Corporation of America was brought to plaintiff’s station to repair a flat tire. Later that day, while the vehicle was being operated in Queens County, the hubcap which plaintiff had replaced in the course of his work fell off and struck one Braceo. Braceo sued the owner of the vehicle, its operator, and the present plaintiff, the latter on the theory that he had negligently replaced the hubcap. Defendant refused to defend on the ground that there was no coverage under the policy issued by it. In our opinion, Bracco’s accident was caused by the hazard insured against (the negligence of plaintiff at his place of business) and the fact that the accident occurred away from plaintiff’s premises does not bring it within exclusion “ (a)” of the policy. (Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp. v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co., 214 F. 2d 418 .) Nor was the hubcap a product manufactured, sold, handled, or distributed by plaintiff within exclusion “ (d) ” of the policy. (Employers’ Liability Assur. Corp. V. Youghiogheny <& Ohio Coal Co., supra; General Cas. Co. of Wis. v. Larson, 196 F. 2d 170 .) If defendant is of the opinion that Braceo or the codefendants in Bracco’s negligence action are indispensable parties to this action, it should move to join them as parties; this action may not be dismissed for such nonjoinder. (Carruthers v. Waite Mining Co., 306 N. Y. 136, 141-142 .) Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Beldoek and Murphy, JJ., concur. [See 285 App. Div. 830 .]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1957: 21958: 11960: 11962: 21967: 11982: 219572026peak 1957 · 2

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.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Employers' Liab. Assur. Corp. v. Youghiogheny & Ohio Co, 214 F.2d 418 (8th Cir. 1954) 34
Carruthers v. Jack Waite Mining Co., 116 N.E.2d 286 (N.Y. 1953) 41
Gen. Cas. Co. Of Wis. v. Larson, 196 F.2d 170 (8th Cir. 1952) 24

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list