Legal Opinion
Materazzi v. Commercial Casualty Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 14, 1935PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShientag, J.
The defendant herein issued to the San Dis Engineering Corporation a poEcy of casualty insurance, by the terms of which it agreed to indemnify the insured against loss “ from Habihty imposed by law ” for damages resulting from accident to or otherwise suffered by third persons for which the assured was Hable. The Emits of the Habihty under the pohcy were fixed at $20,000 for injury or death to one person and $75,000 for injury or death to more than one person.
While the policy was in full force and effect, plaintiff was injured and brought an action in neghgence against the San Dis Engineering…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Coleman v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Merchants Mutual Automobile Liability Insurance v. SmartSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Schoenfeld v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Bakker v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1934
- 755 Seventh Avenue Corp. v. CarrollNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ancateau ex rel. Trust Co. of Chicago v. Commercial Casualty InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1943
- Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. GanttSupreme Court of Alabama · 1951
- Kaye v. DoeNew York Supreme Court · 1953
- Lechleitner v. CummingsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1945
- Stonborough v. Preferred Accident InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1943
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.