Legal Opinion
Casey v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America
Albany City Court
Decided December 30, 1953PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHerzog, J.
The question at issue here arises over the interpretation of the clause now contained in most theft insurance policies, which reads: ‘ ‘ Theft. The word ‘ theft ’ includes larceny, burglary and robbery. Mysterious disappearance of any insured property except a precious or semi-precious stone from its setting in any watch or piece of jewelry, shall be presumed to be due to theft.” The difficulty arises over the meaning of ‘ ‘ mysterious disappearance ’ ’ and the presumption created by it.
The undisputed facts, briefly, are: Plaintiff went to see a doctor for a back ailment. Since it was his…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Davis v. St. Paul Mercury & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Caldwell v. St. Paul Mercury-Indemnity Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1950
- Loop v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1953
- Levine v. Accident & Casualty InsuranceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1952
- Sigel v. American Guarantee & Liability InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
3Cited by4 opinions
- Deckler v. Travelers Indemnity CompanyLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1957
- Casey v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1957
- Omnex Group, Inc. v. United States Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Omnex Group, Inc. v. United States Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014