Long Island Lighting Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBertram Harnett, J.
The modern trend has heen to extend the class of persons insured under standardized automobile insurance policies. This is largely to protect the public, and to facilitate indemnity to innocent victims of vehicular misuse. However, an added principle in this extension is the interest of an auto owner or user, who, for one reason or another, feels the need to protect his associates and helpers in the use of his vehicle. The public, the owner, and participants in vehicular use are seen, in principle, to be likely the beneficiaries of the auto liability insuring scope.
However, what of strangers…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Wagman v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1952
- Zillman v. Meadowbrook Hospital Co.New York Supreme Court · 1973
- Allstate Insurance Co. v. General Fire and Casualty Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
- Nicollet Properties, Inc. v. St. Paul Mercury InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
- F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Garcia v. Federal Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 2007
- Bretton v. Mutual of Omaha InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1977
- Celina Mutual Insurance v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1990
- Sentry Insurance v. Pacific Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1977
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.