Legal Opinion

Polstein v. Pacific Fire Insurance

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided January 15, 1924PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCallahan, J.

Defendant insurer by its policy agreed to indemnify plaintiff against damage to his automobile by “ accidental collision.” Outside of a limitation clause, whereby the insured should not recover for loss or damage due to any tire unless caused in an accidental collision which also causes other loss or damage to the insured automobile, there is no limitation placed upon the words “ accidental collision ” either by definition or exclusion. Plaintiff was driving his car along a narrow country road. A car was approaching in the opposite direction. In order to avoid striking this car plaintiff…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Harris v. American Casualty Co. of ReadingSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1912

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Davilla v. Liberty Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  2. Wierbinski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Brown v. Union Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1925
  4. National Fire Ins. v. ElliottCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API