Sandolovich v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.
The statute requiring taxicab owners to file security was intended as a protection to the public. (Highway Law, § 282-b, subd. 1, added by Laws of 1922, chap. 612, as amd. *464by Laws of 1927, chap. 278.*) In reading the policy in question this purpose must be kept in mind and the intention of the parties to the policy determined accordingly. The language of the statute is that the bond or policy of insurance shall be conditioned for the payment of any judgment recovered against the insured. The policy, itself, shows an intention to accomplish the purposes of the statute. The language in the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Trinity Universal Ins. v. CunninghamCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1939
- Engelson v. Commerce Casualty Co.New York Supreme Court · 1933
- American Transit Insurance v. SartorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003