Berman v. Aetna Life Insurance Company

2 Citing cases

  1. Safian v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.

    260 App. Div. 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)   Cited 8 times

    Thereafter, during a second trial of the case, the doctor settled for $1,250. He here sues the insurance company for this sum and an additional sum of $2,006 for expenses for counsel fees and services in prosecuting the appeal and defending the retrial. In Berman v. AEtna Life Ins. Co. ( 256 App. Div. 916 [Feb. 1939]) this court, without opinion, affirmed a determination of the Appellate Term denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment based upon the same group insurance policy. In that case, the doctor, who was covered by the same clause in the same policy, was sued in our Supreme Court by a patient to recover damages for malpractice; the action was dismissed without prejudice; and thereafter the same plaintiff sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for breach of contract, under the terms of which the doctor in consideration of $400 agreed and warranted that he would by operation remove plaintiff's facial disfigurements.

  2. Strauss v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co.

    30 Misc. 2d 345 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. 1961)   Cited 5 times
    In Strauss, the action was brought by an attorney against his professional liability carrier to protect him from the claim of a client who insisted upon the return of money placed with the attorney in escrow.

    ( Sapolin v. American Employers Ins. Co., 21 Misc.2d 477.) In Safian v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. ( 260 App. Div. 765, affd. without opinion 286 N.Y. 649), the court held that a policy indemnifying a physician against loss for claims for damages "on account of any malpractice, error or mistake committed" by the physician did not cover liability in an action for breach of contract. (See, also, Berman v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 256 App. Div. 916. ) It therefore necessarily follows that insurance coverage for claims arising out of "malpractice, error or mistake" is clearly legally distinguishable from coverage for breach of contract. The legal duty inherent in the former, the breach of which is covered, is wholly different.