Legal Opinion
Bolling v. Northern Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 14, 1938PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCallahan, J.
The question involved in this controversy is one of coverage under a policy of insurance. The policy issued by defendant insured plaintiff against direct loss by theft, larceny, robbery and pilferage of her automobile. It contains a comprehensive clause against any loss of or damage to the automobile, except that the company is not to be hable for loss caused by collision. It is specifically provided that damage resulting from theft shall not be deemed a loss caused by collision.
In the event of theft the insured is required to give notice to the company, in addition to immediately notifying…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bird v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Edwards v. Maryland Motor Car InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Callahan v. London & Lancashire Fire InsuranceAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1917
- Kansas City Regal Auto Co. v. Old Colony InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1917
3Cited by7 opinions
- Stephens v. Katz Parking System, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1973
- Pangburn v. Travelers InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Eisenberg v. Motors InsuranceCivil Court of the City of New York · 1970
- Golebiewski v. Great Eastern InsuranceCivil Court of the City of New York · 1967
- WIRTH, DONALD v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANYAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.