Legal Opinion
Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 27, 1926PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtProskauer, J.
Defendant insured the Endicott Drug Store, Inc., “ against loss from the liability * * * as a result of any error * * * in the filling of any prescription.” Plaintiff recovered judgment against the assured for such an injury and, after return of execution unsatisfied (the assured being bankrupt), sues under section 109 of the Insurance Law (added by Laws of 1917, chap. 524, as amd. by Laws of 1924, chap. 639) providing that bankruptcy of the assured “ shall not release the insurance carrier from the payment of damages ” and “ in case execution against the insured is returned unsatisfied * * *…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Schoenfeld v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Porter v. . Traders' Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Roth v. National Automobile Mutual Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Taxicab Motor Co. v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1913
- Collins' Executors v. Standard Accident InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
3Cited by9 opinions
- Conroy v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Finkle v. Western Automobile InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1930
- Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. BlueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Shee v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1953
- Rohlf v. Great American Mutual Indemnity Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1927
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.