Legal Opinion

Joy Builders, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided October 2, 1959PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

There are triable issues of fact. The insured’s failure to obtain or seek the prior consent of the disclaiming insurers is not, as a matter of law, a bar to recovery of the sum expended in settlement of the claim. Plaintiff would be entitled to reimbursement upon showing that the amount paid was reasonable under the circumstances and that the insurers had breached their contract by improperly withdrawing from the defense of the action (Mayor, Lane & Co. v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 169 App. Div. 772; Empire Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bogart, 13 Misc 2d 1094; see, also, Berger Bros. Elec. Motors v. New…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Berger Bros. Electric Motors, Inc. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1944
  2. Mayor, Lane & Co. v. Commercial Casualty InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
  3. Berger Bros. Electric Motors, Inc. v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
  4. Empire Mutual Insurance v. BogartNew York Supreme Court · 1958

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Weissblum v. Glens Falls InsuranceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1961
  2. Servidone Construction Corp. v. Security InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API