Legal Opinion
Merl v. Standard Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 2, 1940PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBergan, J.
The conclusion is reached as a matter of law that the use of the word “ theft ” by the parties to the contract of insurance intended the poHcy issued by defendant to cover damage from upset or collision, only in the event such damage resulted from the taking of the automobile by someone with the felonious intent to appropriate it permanently and wholly. (Van Vechten v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 239 N. Y. 303, 305.) It was there held, not as a question of fact, but as a matter of law, since the court in such a case dealt only with matters of law, that the use of the word “ theft ” by the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Van Vechten v. American Eagle Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- DeLong v. Massachusetts Fire & Marine InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Schenectady Varnish Co. v. Automobile Insurance Co. of HartfordNew York Supreme Court · 1926
3Cited by3 opinions
- Pennsylvania Indemnity Fire Corp. v. AldridgeCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Meissner v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1984
- Associates Discount Corp. v. Insurance of North AmericaCivil Court of the City of New York · 1967