Legal Opinion · Dissent

RLI Insurance v. Smiedala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 26, 2010Published

1Dissent

Scudder, P.J., and Gorski, J. (dissenting in part).

We respectfully dissent in part. In our view, this is not a case in which the policy “covers neither the person nor the vehicle involved in [the] automobile accident” (Zappone v Home Ins. Co., 55 NY2d 131, 139 [1982]). At the time of the accident, defendant Michael J. Hale was using his personal vehicle to conduct business on behalf of defendant Regional Integrated Logistics, Inc. (Regional). The commercial automobile insurance policy at issue provides coverage for any automobile, regardless of ownership, subject to certain specified…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Zappone v. Home InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Hartford Insurance v. County of NassauNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. First Financial Insurance v. Jetco Contracting Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2003
  4. Worcester Insurance v. BettenhauserNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. Maurice Goldman & Sons, Inc. v. Hanover InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1992

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API