Legal Opinion

Posnick-Nonas Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 2, 1927PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtO'Malley, J.

Here is involved the sufficiency of three separate and distinct avoidances contained in the reply. The action is on a policy of burglary insurance and the complaint is in the usual form. The answer, in addition to the denials, contains three *37separate and distinct defenses, with only one of which are we concerned. This is based on certain alleged breaches of warranty in the schedule forming part of the policy which are:

“ Statement 3. The portion of the building occupied solely by the Assured in conducting his business is 10th floor.
“ Statement 4. The business conducted by the Assured in the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Insurance Co. v. NortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. People v. President & Directors of the Manhattan Co.New York Supreme Court · 1832
  3. Kiernan v. Dutchess County Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
  4. Armstrong v. Agricultural InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  5. Satz v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1926

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Katz v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934

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

Powered by the Exa API