Greenman v. Gen. Reinsurance Corp.

• Citation: 188 N.E. 128,262 N.Y. 701
• Parties: Philip GREENMAN, Appellant, v. GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 27 October 1933
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

262 N.Y. 701

188 N.E. 128

Philip GREENMAN, Appellant,

v.GENERAL REINSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 27, 1933.

Appeal from a judgment, entered March 13, 1933, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (237 App. Div. 648, 262 N. Y. S. 569), which reversed on the law an order of Special Term denying a motion by defendant to dismiss the amended complaint herein on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and granted the motion. The complaint, for a first cause of action, alleged that in 1926 the defendant had entered into a contract with the New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Company to reinsure the risks of such company over and above certain specified amounts; that plaintiff brought an action against one Avidon, the operator of an automobile truck, to recover for personal injuries sustained by him on April 20, 1931, in a collision with the truck; that prior to the accident the New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Company had issued a policy of casualty insurance to Avidon; that such insurance company undertook the defense of such action; that plaintiff recovered a judgment against Avidon, which was not paid because of Avidon's insolvency; that thereafter an action was commenced, pursuant to section 109 of the Insurance Law (Consol. Laws, c. 28), by plaintiff against such insurance company resulting in a judgment in favor of plaintiff; and that thereafter such insurance company became insolvent and went into liquidation. For a second cause of action, the complaint realleged the allegations contained in the first cause of action, and, in addition, alleged that at the time Avidon applied to the New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Company for the policy of insurance issued to him by such company, he was advised of the reinsurance contract which such company had with the defendant herein, and in reliance thereon accepted such policy and paid the premium therefor. The complaint demanded judgment against defendant for the sum alleged to be due to plaintiff by reason of such reinsurance contract.

Jay Leo Rothschild, Barnet Kaprow, David L. Weissman, and Walter S. Beck, all of New York City, for appellant.

Hartwell Cabell, James M. Lown, and Joseph S. Catalano, all of New York City, for respondent.

Hyman R. Friedman, of New York City, for Hugo Senker, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment...