Thames Realty Corp. v. Massachusetts Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1959 |
| Citation | 184 N.Y.S.2d 170,16 Misc.2d 747 |
| Parties | THAMES REALTY CORP., Plaintiff, v. MASSACHUSETTS FIRE & MARINE INS. CO., Citizens Ins. Co. of N. J., Firemen's Ins. Co. of Newark, Albany Insurance Company, Standard Ins. Co. of N. Y., Cosmopolitan Mutual Ins. Co., Lumber Mutual Fire Ins. Co., New York Board of Fire Underwriters, Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Raymond Werchen, New York City, for plaintiff.
Lowenstein, Pitcher, Spence, Hotchkiss, Amann & Parr, New York City (Joseph Soffey, New York City, of counsel), for defendants.
Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing each of the four causes of action. The undisputed facts are that plaintiff is the owner of a building in Brooklyn. On December 3, 1956 there was an explosion at a pier some distance from plaintiff's building but which caused some damage to the building. Defendants are insurance companies which had issued policies of insurance to plaintiff covering this type of damage. Plaintiff gave notice to defendant and thereupon had a builder survey its building to ascertain the extent of damage. Plaintiff also designated a public adjuster who met with defendants' adjusters and between them, these adjusters agreed upon the amount of damage. This sum was paid and plaintiff released defendants.
The first cause of action is for additional damage that plaintiff claims it discovered subsequent to the payment and is on the policies. These instruments provide that any suit must be brought 'within twelve months next after inception of the loss.' Admittedly this action was begun more than twelve months after the explosion. Plaintiff claims that the damage was discovered only a few months before suit was instituted. This is immaterial. The words 'inception of the loss' in a standard policy have been construed with careful attention and they mean the occurrence of the event insured against (Margulies v. Quaker City Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 276 App.Div. 695, 97 N.Y.S.2d 100. The first cause of action is barred.
The second and third causes of action are for fraud. No specific claims of misrepresentation are alleged or set out in the affidavits. All that appears in that respect is that plaintiff's president says that his representatives in the adjustment told him that the insurance company representatives said the damage was about $1,000 and he believed them. His own builder had reported $1,900. None of the items now in suit are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Setzer v. Old Republic Life Ins. Co., 311
...plaintiff and the defendant. There was none. An insurance company is not a trustee for its insured. Thames Realty Co. v. Mass. Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 170 Misc.2d 747, 184 N.Y.S. 2d 170. In Thames Realty Company the defendant's adjusters discovered that defendant's loss was greater than p......
-
Wood v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...Wilson v. Indiana Ins. Co., 150 Ill.App.3d 669, 103 Ill.Dec. 922, 502 N.E.2d 69 (1986); Thames Realty Corp. v. Massachusetts F & M. Ins. Co., 16 Misc.2d 747, 184 N.Y.S.2d 170 (1959). Recently, in Brunner v. Economy Preferred Ins. Co., 597 N.E.2d 1317 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992), the Indiana Appellat......
-
Bell v. Quaker City Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Philadelphia
... ... Assurance Co. of America, Sup., 107 N.Y.S.2d 961; Thames Realty Corp. v. Massachusetts F. & M. Ins. Co., 16 Misc.2d 747, 184 ... ...
-
Proc v. Home Ins. Co.
...Cent. Ins. Co., 13 A.D.2d 707, 214 N.Y.S.2d 68, affg. 23 Misc.2d 290, 201 N.Y.S.2d 174; Thames Realty Corp. v. Massachusetts Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 16 Misc.2d 747, 748, 184 N.Y.S.2d 170, 171.) In view of the pains taken by the Legislature to delineate the precise starting point of the period......