From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mead v. Fidelity and Cas. Co. of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1989
155 A.D.2d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

November 15, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: The insurance policy issued by defendant to M.C.A., Inc. does not insure Karen Mule for her liability arising out of the operation of her father's automobile, even if she is considered to have been in the employ of M.C.A. and engaged in its business at the time of the automobile accident. The comprehensive automobile liability insurance does not insure "employees" and the comprehensive general liability insurance, which does insure employees, excludes from coverage liability arising out of the operation of automobiles in the course of employment.


Summaries of

Mead v. Fidelity and Cas. Co. of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1989
155 A.D.2d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Mead v. Fidelity and Cas. Co. of New York

Case Details

Full title:JAMES J. MEAD, Respondent, v. FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1989

Citations

155 A.D.2d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
547 N.Y.S.2d 491

Citing Cases

Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Primo Suffolk Inc.

may not vary the terms of an insurance contract to accomplish their notions "of abstract justice or moral…