Legal Opinion

Getzoff v. Piedmont Fire Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided January 29, 1953PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

It was error to hold that the loss in question did not come within the provision for comprehensive coverage. The stone which fell from a truck and ultimately came in contact with the insured vehicle was a 66 falling object ” within the fair intendment of the policy. Any doubt as to the meaning of the language of the policy must be resolved in favor of the assured (Hartol Products Corp v. Prudential Ins. Co., 290 N. Y. 44).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts and new trial granted, with $30 costs to plaintiff to abide the event.

Walsh, Golden and Murphy, JJ.,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hartol Products Corp. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1943

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Morrow v. Ætna Casualty & Surety Co.Syracuse City Court · 1966
  2. Pohl v. Commercial Insurance of NewarkNew York Supreme Court · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API