Legal Opinion

Scarola v. Insurance Co. of North America

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 29, 1972PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBergan, J.

The finding of fact that plaintiff purchased the automobile insured by defendant for value and without knowledge it was stolen has been affirmed, both by the Appellate Term and by the Appellate Division, and is not an open question here. Thus the issue of plaintiff’s insurable interest must be examined on the assumption he was an innocent buyer of the vehicle insured by defendant, and subsequently stolen.

Plaintiff had a right to possession of the car against any contrary assertion except that of the true owner. This right, under general principles, ought to be regarded as an insurable…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Herkimer v. . RiceNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
  2. Riggs v. Commercial Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  3. Barnett v. London Assurance Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1926
  4. National Filtering Oil Co. v. Citizens' InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  5. Nieschlag & Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Mut. InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Reznick v. Home Insurance Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1977
  2. Snethen v. Oklahoma State Union of the Farmers Educational & Cooperative UnionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1983
  3. SR International Business Insurance v. World Trade Center Properties, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
  4. Armenia Coffee v. American Nat. Fire Ins.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2006
  5. Phillips v. Cincinnati InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1979

19 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