Legal Opinion

Ludwig v. Pacific Fire Insurance

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided May 12, 1924PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWendel, J.

Action to recover for the theft of an automobile under a policy insuring plaintiff, among other things, against “ theft, robbery or pilferage, excepting by any person or persons in the assured’s household or in the assured’s service or employment * * One Eckele was conducting what purported *190to be a business for the storage, repair and sale of automobiles. Plaintiff, on December 7, 1920, consigned his car to Eckele for the purpose of having the same sold. A consignment order was made out and signed by plaintiff and accepted by Eckele wherein it appears that plaintiff placed his car with Eckele…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Delafield v. London & Lancashire Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  2. Van Vechten v. American Eagle Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
  3. Siegel v. Union Assurance SocietyCity of New York Municipal Court · 1915

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re CarrollAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  2. Gulf Finance & Securities Co. v. National Fire InsuranceLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1927
  3. People v. WebsterJustice Court of Town of Perinton · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API