From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenthal v. Sec. Mutual Ins. Co. of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1970
33 A.D.2d 1041 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Summary

In Rosenthal v. Security Mut. Ins. Co. (33 A.D.2d 1041), the court in reversing a denial of summary judgment to plaintiff said: "We find that the original contract of insurance, for which the premium was fully paid, was a divisible one and not subject to cancellation for failure to pay the premium for the additional and more comprehensive coverage after the issuance of the original policy".

Summary of this case from 8 First Sav. Loan v. Amer. Home Assur

Opinion

February 16, 1970


In this action for declaratory judgment, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 27, 1969, as denied him summary judgment declaring (1) that he was an insured under the automobile liability insurance policy issued to him by respondent Security Mutual Insurance Company of New York and that the policy was in full force and effect on December 24, 1967, (2) that under the policy said respondent is obligated to defend him in a negligence action brought against him by the additional defendant, Sylvia Printz, (3) that said respondent is obligated to pay, within the limits of the policy, all sums which he may be obligated to pay by reason of any recovery or judgment rendered in favor of the additional defendant, Sylvia Printz, in the negligence action, and (4) that said respondent is liable to pay the damages and expenses, including attorneys' fees, that he has incurred to date in conducting his own defense in the negligence action. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements against respondent Security Mutual Insurance Company of New York, and summary judgment granted to plaintiff, making the declaration as hereinabove set forth. We find that the original contract of insurance, for which the premium was fully paid, was a divisible one and not subject to cancellation for failure to pay the premium for the additional and more comprehensive coverage after the issuance of the original policy. Rabin, Acting P.J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rosenthal v. Sec. Mutual Ins. Co. of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 16, 1970
33 A.D.2d 1041 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

In Rosenthal v. Security Mut. Ins. Co. (33 A.D.2d 1041), the court in reversing a denial of summary judgment to plaintiff said: "We find that the original contract of insurance, for which the premium was fully paid, was a divisible one and not subject to cancellation for failure to pay the premium for the additional and more comprehensive coverage after the issuance of the original policy".

Summary of this case from 8 First Sav. Loan v. Amer. Home Assur
Case details for

Rosenthal v. Sec. Mutual Ins. Co. of New York

Case Details

Full title:SEYMOUR ROSENTHAL, Appellant, v. SECURITY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 16, 1970

Citations

33 A.D.2d 1041 (N.Y. App. Div. 1970)

Citing Cases

Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Here, too, the premium for each risk, one for the Buick and the other for the Chevrolet, is "separately…

8 First Sav. Loan v. Amer. Home Assur

The fact that the premium covered the same premises does not mandate a holding that the original contract for…