Legal Opinion

Scarola v. Insurance Co. of North America

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided June 15, 1971PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

An innocent purchaser for value of a stolen vehicle is entitled to recover its value under the theft coverage of the insurer’s policy. Contrary to the contention of the appellant insurer, such an insured has a lawful and substantial economic interest as required by section 148 of the Insurance Law. Neither the manner of his acquisition nor his possession of the vehicle can be said to he unlawful. His substantial economic interest is sustained by the amount of money that he parted with in obtaining possession and colorable ownership of the vehicle. Although there is a division of authority as…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Friscia v. Safeguard InsuranceCivil Court of the City of New York · 1968
  2. Lindner v. Hartford Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Perrotta v. Empire Mutual InsuranceAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1970

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Scarola v. INS. CO. OF N. AMER.New York Court of Appeals · 1972
  2. Scarola v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
  3. Treit v. Oregon Automobile Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Treit v. Oregon Automobile Insurance Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API