Horn v. Commonwealth Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 119.,119. |
| Citation | 147 A. 483 |
| Parties | HORN v. COMMONWEALTH CASUALTY CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Lillian Horn against the Commonwealth Casualty Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, Horn v. Szumski, 137 A. 792, 5 N. J. Misc. R. 672.
Schneider & Schneider, of Newark, for appellant.
Aaron L. Simon, of Passaic, for appellee.
The trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $4,746.65, and refused to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. His action in these particulars is brought before us by proper assignments of error.
It appears that on September 8, 1924, the plaintiff sued in tort Alexander Szumski and the Eagle Provision Company. The action grew out of the negligent operation of an automobile, and was defended at the instance of the present defendant, the Commonwealth Casualty Company, by its attorney. After final judgment, an execution issued against Alexander Szumski and Eagle Provision Company was returned unsatisfied by the sheriff of Passaic county.
The rights of the plaintiff in the present suit arise under chapter 153 of the Laws of 1924, and the following provision of the policy:
The plaintiff has requested the Commonwealth Casualty Company to pay the judgment, and it has refused so to do, stating that it carried no insurance for Alexander Szumski or Eagle Provision Company at the time of the accident. It does admit, however, that the automobile involved in the accident was insured by it in the name and under the ownership of Sophie Putkowski. The policy contains this provision: "It is agreed that the word 'assured' wherever used in the policy to which this indorsement is attached shall be considered to include in addition to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merchants Indem. Corp. v. Eggleston
...at p 286, 104 A.2d 334). In other cases prejudice was assumed without any discussion of the subject. See Horn v. Commonwealth Casualty Co., 105 N.J.L. 616, 147 A. 483 (E. & A. 1929); Cook v. Preferred Accident Ins. Co., 114 N.J.L. 141, 176 A. 178 (E. & A.1935); Caiola v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Young
...liability on the ground that the driver of the car was using it without the permission of the named insured. Horn v. Commonwealth Casualty Co., 105 N.J.Law, 616, 147 A. 483; Jusiak v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 169 A. 551, 11 N.J.Misc. 869; Cook v. Preferred Accident Ins. Co. of New York......
-
American Handling Equipment, Inc. v. T. C. Moffatt & Co.
...an exclusion or the absence of specific coverage. Our courts, over the years, have repeatedly so held. Horn v. Commonwealth Cas. Co., 105 N.J.L. 616, 147 A. 483 (E. & A. 1929); Cook v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co., 114 N.J.L. 141, 176 A. 178 (E. & A. 1935); O'Dowd v. United States Fid. & Guar. C......
-
Sussex Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hala Cleaners, Inc.
...fifty years, to the effect that once a carrier undertakes to defend, it is estopped to deny coverage. E. g., Horn v. Commonwealth Cas. Co., 105 N.J.L. 616, 147 A. 483 (E. & A. 1929); Cook v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co., 114 N.J.L. 141, 176 A. 178 (E. & A. 1935); Kabinski v. Employers' Liab. Ass......