Legal Opinion
Farrell v. Merchants Mutual Automobile Liability Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 3, 1922PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Blackmar, P. J.:
When the summons and complaint in the action by plaintiff against Heifer was delivered to defendant on June 22, 1920, the company had knowledge that immediate written notice of the accident had not been given. The condition of the policy was broken by Heifer, and the company knew it. It was then competent for the company to stand upon its rights and disclaim liability, leaving Heifer to defend the action.
*121But the company did not take such course. It assumed the defense of the action and power over settlement, all to the exclusion of the assured. It did this by virtue of a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Morrison v. Royal Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
- Laundry v. Travelers InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Holland Laundry v. . Travelers Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
3Cited by15 opinions
- Miller v. Union Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- Schoenfeld v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Weatherwax v. Royal Indemnity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1929
- United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1931
- Oehme v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.