Legal Opinion
Yankelevitz v. Royal Globe Insurance
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 28, 1983PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*930OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
We perceive no constitutional infirmity in the provision of subdivision 3 of section 167 of the Insurance Law, which operates to exclude coverage for liability of the insured for personal injury or property damage claims by the insured’s spouse where the culpable conduct of the insured is in issue, unless the policy expressly declares such coverage. Plaintiff’s contention that the Legislature’s failure to require that the insurance policy expressly give notice to the insured of this exclusion…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. SteckerNew York Court of Appeals · 1957
- Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. ArestyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1960
- Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. ArestyNew York Court of Appeals · 1962
- New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. SteckerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1956
3Cited by10 opinions
- American Motorists Insurance v. SalvatoreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- Suba v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Government Employees Insurance v. PaganoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Black v. Allstate Ins.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Insurance Co. of North America v. ZagloolDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2007
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.