206 Misc. 3, Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Guthiel

Citation206 Misc. 3, 132 N.Y.S.2d 478
Party NamePHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM GUTHIEL et al., Defendants.
Case DateAugust 04, 1954

Page 3

206 Misc. 3

132 N.Y.S.2d 478

PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM GUTHIEL et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Monroe County.

August 4, 1954

Page 4

COUNSEL

Stephen V. Lines for plaintiff.

Paul R. Taylor for Arthur Buckle, defendant.

Eric P. Smith for Harold Shoemaker, defendant.

Samuel J. Stagnitto for Albert Guthiel and others, defendants.

Samuel G. Brundage for George Greenlea, defendant.

ROBERTS, J.

This is an action by the plaintiff for a declaratory judgment to determine whether or not it is obligated to defend and indemnify the defendants, Arthur Buckle and Harold Shoemaker, from claims of the remaining defendants under the terms of an automobile liability insurance policy issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, Arthur Buckle.

The question of coverage here involved arises out of certain facts which are not in dispute. All of the essential facts are alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answers of the defendants Buckle and Shoemaker and in an admission of the defendant Shoemaker pursuant to section 322 of the Civil

Page 5

Practice Act. There being no question of fact presented, the determination of the issue raises solely a question of law which can properly be disposed of by this motion for a summary judgment.

The question presented for determination is this: Does an automobile liability insurance policy cover the named insured and his transferee for liability arising out of an accident involving a car covered by the policy after the named insured has transferred title to the car to the transferee but where the license plates of the named insured have remained upon the car and are on the same at the time of the accident?

The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows: On February 15, 1953, the plaintiff issued a combination automobile policy to the defendant, Arthur Buckle, covering a 1939 Buick. The policy period was from February 15, 1953, to February 15, 1954. By the terms of this policy the plaintiff agreed 'to pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages' because of bodily injury or injury to property 'caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile'. On May 29, 1953, an indorsement was issued for said policy eliminating the 1939 Buick from coverage and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • 2 N.Y.2d 584, Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Guthiel
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 1957
    ...Buckle to Shoemaker' and that at the time of the accident Buckle, the insured, 'had no title, lien upon or other interest, in the car'. (206 Misc. 3, 132 N.Y.S.2d 480) The Appellate Division, however, reversed and granted judgment for the plaintiff. We think that decision was correct. Our c......
1 cases
  • 2 N.Y.2d 584, Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Guthiel
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 1957
    ...Buckle to Shoemaker' and that at the time of the accident Buckle, the insured, 'had no title, lien upon or other interest, in the car'. (206 Misc. 3, 132 N.Y.S.2d 480) The Appellate Division, however, reversed and granted judgment for the plaintiff. We think that decision was correct. Our c......