Legal Opinion

Binder v. Northern Assurance Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided July 14, 1931PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam.

The mortgagee is entitled to recover on the facts presented. The insurance company admits the loss and has paid the money into court. The mortgagee clause in the policy created an independent contract of insurance for the separate benefit of the mortgagee. (Goldstein v. National Liberty Ins. Co., 256 N. Y. 26.) The only question involved is whether the mortgagee or the mortgagor’s receiver is entitled to recover. Whatever might be the rule applicable if it was clearly established that the premises had been entirely restored by the mortgagor to their former condition (See Matter of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Goldstein v. National Liberty Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
  2. Foster v. Equitable Mutual Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1854
  3. In re MooreNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1876

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Savarese v. Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. of LeroyNew York Court of Appeals · 1932

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API