Steinfield v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, on an indemnity policy. The defendants insured the plaintiff against liability for loss imposed on him by law “by reason of the ownership, maintenance and use” of his automobile. The plaintiff was a partner in the firm of B. Steinfield Sons and used the machine in the partnership business.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on an indemnity policy. The defendants insured the plaintiff against liability for loss imposed on him by law “by reason of the ownership, maintenance and use” of his automobile. The plaintiff was a partner in the firm of B. Steinfield Sons and used the machine in the partnership business. One of the partners while driving the machine, ran into one Dean, and he recovered a judgment against the firm, which the firm satisfied, and a deduction was made, from the interest of the plaintiff in the partnership business. The question whether the plaintiff can maintain this action was…
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
If the language of the policy is given its ordinary meaning, the defendants are liable for any.loss the plaintiff sustains during the life of the policy because “of the ownership, maintenance and use” of his automobile, provided liability for the loss was imposed on him by law. In other words, the question whether the defendants are liable for the Dean judgment, does not depend on whether the plaintiff was using the machine on his own business where the accident happened, but on whether the law made him liable for Dean’s loss. The test, therefore, to determine whether the plaintiff can…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kelley v. London Guarantee & Accident Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Rock Springs Distilling Co. v. Employers' Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
3Cited by1 opinion
- London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Otis Elevator Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1927