Legal Opinion · Dissent
McGroarty v. Great American Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided January 28, 1974Published
1DissentMunder, J.
The majority opinion argues that the injury was accidental and within the coverage of the insurance policies, since, as Judge Cardozo said in Messersmith v. American Fid. Co. (232 N. Y. 161, 165), “ injuries are accidental or the opposite for the purpose of indemnity according to the quality of the results rather than the quality of the causes.”
But the word 1‘ accident ’ ’ cannot be so precisely defined as to render the definitions universally applicable. It is to be construed in its relevant context (Matter óf Croshier v. Levitt, 5 N Y 2d 259) and its meaning “ is to be determined, not by…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Messersmith v. . American Fidelity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1921
- Jackson v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1931
- Jackson v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Jackson v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance v. Packer's Supermarket, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1972