Legal Opinion
Perrotta v. Empire Mutual Insurance
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided February 4, 1970PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
The finding of the trial court that plaintiff was an innocent purchaser for value of a stolen automobile is not questioned by defendant on this appeal. In the light of such finding, it is our opinion that plaintiff had an insurable interest in the automobile at the time it was stolen from him (Skaff v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 215 So. 2d 35 [Fla.]; Barnett v. London Assur. Corp., 138 Wash. 673; Norris v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 1 N. J. Misc. 315). However, his recovery should be limited to the amount demanded in the complaint (see Michalowski v. Ey, 7 N Y 2d 71).
The judgment…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Barnett v. London Assurance Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 1926
- Skaff v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
3Cited by3 opinions
- Scarola v. INS. CO. OF N. AMER.New York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Scarola v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1971
- Scarola v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1972