Legal Opinion

Laidlaw v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 18, 1930PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrane, J.

With so much of the judgment appealed from as reforms the policy of insurance upon the ground that it was issued through mutual mistake by the parties to this action, we agree with the Appellate Division that it should be affirmed. That court made a slight deduction in the amount of the recovery and we have determined that it must be still further reduced.

The policy, known as an automobile policy, as thus reformed, insured Lee G. Laidlaw against any loss through liability imposed by law upon the insured for bodily injuries or death in the maintenance and use of the automobiles described…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Light, Heat & Power Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Chisholm v. Royal InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  3. Ayles v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Assurance Co. of America v. BellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
  2. Cox v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Alsam Holding Co. v. Consolidated Taxpayers' Mutual InsuranceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1938
  4. Martinez v. Gulf Insurance CompanyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Dalrymple v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1976

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API