Legal Opinion

Pauli v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co.

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

Decided November 16, 1938PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: In this policy of casualty insurance which was so worded that the form might be used to include coverages of risks from fire, theft, tornado and so forth, which, however, were not underwritten, a representation as to the motor car in question being subject to no lien, mortgage or other incumbrance, was immaterial to the casualty risks assumed. The insured’s use of the car in guiding fire apparatus to a fire while the insured was a volunteer fireman was, under the evidence in this case, a use coming within the terms “pleasure and business” which were…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Pauli v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co.New York Supreme Court · 1938

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Didlake v. Standard Ins. CoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1952
  2. General Insurance Company of America, and Interveners, Sherman L. Jones v. Western Fire & Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1957
  3. The Western Casualty and Surety Company, a Corporation v. Margy Herman, Mark Lowell Herman, and Leo NewmanCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1963
  4. Tyrnauer v. Travelers InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
  5. Musso v. American Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. of IllinoisNew York Supreme Court · 1958

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

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

Powered by the Exa API