Downey v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1968 |
| Citation | 291 N.Y.S.2d 726,30 A.D.2d 171 |
| Parties | Mary DOWNEY, Appellant, v. MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Francis X. Murphy, Buffalo, for appellant.
Gleason & O'Connor, Buffalo, Raymond V. O'Connor, Buffalo, of counsel, for respondent.
Before BASTOW, P.J., and DEL VECCHIO, MARSH, WITMER and FREDERIC T. HENRY, JJ.
The court below dismissed plaintiff's action for judgment declaring that defendant is legally obligated to defend her and is liable to pay any judgment which Mary Saracina and husband may recover against her in the negligence action they have brought against plaintiff and the City of Buffalo. It appears that plaintiff's husband was employed by the City of Buffalo and had the use of one of its automobiles upon its business. He permitted the plaintiff to drive it on July 29, 1965, and while doing so she was involved in an accident with a vehicle driven by Mary Saracina, who then, with her husband, instituted the above mentioned negligence action.
It happened that the defendant in this declaratory judgment action was the insurer of the City's vehicle and also of the family automobile owned by plaintiff's husband. Upon being served with the summons and complaint in the negligence action by the Saracinas, the plaintiff herein turned it over to this defendant as her insurer to defend. The defendant then wrote to plaintiff and to her husband disclaiming liability with respect to said accident under either policy of insurance, upon the ground that the plaintiff herein was operating the City's vehicle without permission. The plaintiff thereupon instituted this action against her insurer; and the latter responded with the motion to dismiss the action on the stated ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court to entertain it. The affidavit in support of the motion stated that it was based upon the ground that the question of permission of the plaintiff to operate the City vehicle must necessarily be determined in the negligence action, and that hence it should not be decided preliminarily in the declaratory judgment action. The motion was, therefore, essentially addressed to the discretion of the court, to avoid multiple trials of the issue; and we assume that it was on such ground that the motion was granted.
We agree that the issue of plaintiff's permissin to drive the City vehicle will be determined in the negligence action; and that defendant's liability to pay any judgment recovered against the plaintiff herein in that action, to the extent of the coverage, will depend upon the determination of the issue of plaintiff's permission to operate the City's vehicle; and that hence such issue should not be tried in the declaratory judgment action. (Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Dennis, 14 A.D.2d 188, 217 N.Y.S.2d 680; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belmer v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...no possibility exists of payment by the excess carrier, no obligation to defend of the excess carrier is created. Downey v. Merchants Mutual, 30 A.D.2d 171, 291 N.Y.S.2d 726; Financial Indemnity Co. v. Colonial Ins. Co., 132 Cal.App.2d 207, 281 P.2d 883; c.f. McFarland v. Chicago Exp. Ins.,......
-
Gessin v. Throne-Holst
...current manner of municipal purchasing and bidding by the Trustees also states a cause of action ( see Downey v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 30 A.D.2d 171, 291 N.Y.S.2d 726 [4th Dept. 1968], affd.23 N.Y.2d 989, 298 N.Y.S.2d 998, 246 N.E.2d 757 [1969] ). Thus, plaintiffs have made a sufficient ......
-
Colon v. Aetna Life and Cas. Ins. Co.
...The undesirable consequences cannot be avoided through a declaratory judgment action or summary judgment (see, Downey v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 30 A.D.2d 171, 291 N.Y.S.2d 726, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 989, 298 N.Y.S.2d 998, 246 N.E.2d 757; Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dennis, 14 A.D.2d 188, 217 N.......
-
Rimar v. Continental Cas. Co.
...its obligation to pay (Goldberg v. Lumber Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., 297 N.Y. 148, 154, 77 N.E.2d 131, 133; Downey v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 30 A.D.2d 171, 173, 291 N.Y.S.2d 726, 728). The 'defendant was obligated to defend against the possibility thereof 'even if such suit is groundless, ......