Legal Opinion
Home Insurance v. Bernstein
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided December 10, 1939PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPette, J.
A very unusual situation is presented by the parties herein upon an agreed statement of facts. The action is for money had and received.
In 1936 the defendant Murray Bernstein purchased a Plymouth automobile from Berry Bros. Motor Company, Inc. Said purchase was financed by the Commercial Credit Corporation and in connection therewith a policy of collision insurance was procured from the plaintiff company to protect the purchaser, defendant herein, and the finance company. The policy took effect on June 23, 1936, and was continued to December 23, 1937.
On June 28, 1936, Murray Bérnstein was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Hooker Electrochemical Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Sun Mutual Insurance v. Ocean InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Home InsuranceIndiana Supreme Court · 1915
- Swarthout v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Cushman & Rankin Co. v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Allstate Insurance Company v. Kieron Mazzola and First Fidelity L.S. Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- Gibbs v. Hawaiian Eugenia Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Audubon Ins. Co. v. FarrSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1984
- Rogers v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958
- Davies v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1979
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.