Knabe v. Independence Indem. Co., No. 29.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation144 A. 179
Decision Date16 January 1929
Docket NumberNo. 29.
PartiesKNABE v. INDEPENDENCE INDEMNITY CO.
144 A. 179

KNABE
v.
INDEPENDENCE INDEMNITY CO.

No. 29.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Jan. 16, 1929.


Action by Ernest Knabe against the Independence Indemnity Company, in which there was a verdict for plaintiff. On defendant's rule to show cause. Rule discharged.

Argued May term, 1928, before GUMMERE, C. J., and PARKER and KATZENBACH, JJ.

Coult & Satz, of Newark, for the rule.

David T. Wilentz, of Perth Amboy, opposed.

PER CURIAM. This case is before us on a defendant's rule to show cause. The only argument advanced in behalf of the defendant to set aside the verdict is that it is contrary to the weight of the evidence. On October 22, 1925, the plaintiff, Ernest Knabe, was injured by an automobile truck. Knabe instituted an action against Andrew J. Gadek, alleged to be the owner of the truck which injured him. Knabe recovered a judgment of $7,500. Execution thereon was issued against Gadek and returned unsatisfied. Gadek was insured by the defendant, Independence Indemnity Company. This company refused to pay the judgment. The plaintiff then instituted a suit against it under the provisions of chapter 153 of the Laws of 1924.

The defendant set up two defenses. The first was that the truck was not covered by the policy of insurance. The second was that if the truck was covered by the policy of insurance, Gadek had failed to notify the defendant of its liability within the time limited in the policy. The case was submitted to the jury, which found a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $8,014.73.

As to the second defense, Andrew J. Gadek was out of the state when the accident occurred and did not know of it. The trial judge seemed under the impression that this defense was abandoned and paid little attention to it during the trial or in his charge. The defendant says now it was not abandoned. The statute (P. L. 1924, p. 352) provides that failure to give any notice required to be given by such policy within the time specified therein shall not invalidate any claim made by the insured if it shall be shown not to have been reasonably possible to give such notice within the prescribed time and that notice was given as soon as was reasonably possible. There was evidence that notice was given by Andrew J. Gadek as soon as was reasonably possible. Under this evidence, bearing in mind this provision of the law, we see no reason for setting aside the verdict on this ground.

As to the first defense it appeared that at the time of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Houran v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. of New York, No. 109.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • November 4, 1937
    ...27 F.(2d) 859, 861; Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Colthurst (C.C.A.) 36 F.(2d) 559, 561, 562; Knabe v. Independence Indemnity Co., 144 A. 179, 180, 7 N.J.Misc. 93; and see Purefoy v. Pacific Automobile Indemnity Co., 5 195 A. 256 Cal.(2d) 81, 53 P. (2d) 155, 158. But the notice must be ......
  • St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. of St. Paul v. Long, No. 5866.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 11, 1936
    ...was not the one covered by the policy. Whether or not this is true, the question was one for the jury. Knabe v. Independence Indemnity Co., 144 A. 179, 7 N.J.Misc. 93; Lorenz v. Bull Dog Automobile Ins. Association, of Chicago (Mo.App.) 277 S. W. 596; Belt Automobile Indemnity Association v......
  • Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Davis, No. 5619.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 9, 1940
    ...to answer pecuniary engagements than the return of an execution unsatisfied." To the same effect are Knabe v. Independence Indemnity Co., 144 A. 179, 7 N.J.Misc. 93; Edwards v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 11 La.App. 176, 123 So. 162. Other authorities hold that the sheriff's return......
3 cases
  • Houran v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co. of New York, No. 109.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • November 4, 1937
    ...27 F.(2d) 859, 861; Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Colthurst (C.C.A.) 36 F.(2d) 559, 561, 562; Knabe v. Independence Indemnity Co., 144 A. 179, 180, 7 N.J.Misc. 93; and see Purefoy v. Pacific Automobile Indemnity Co., 5 195 A. 256 Cal.(2d) 81, 53 P. (2d) 155, 158. But the notice must be ......
  • St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. of St. Paul v. Long, No. 5866.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 11, 1936
    ...was not the one covered by the policy. Whether or not this is true, the question was one for the jury. Knabe v. Independence Indemnity Co., 144 A. 179, 7 N.J.Misc. 93; Lorenz v. Bull Dog Automobile Ins. Association, of Chicago (Mo.App.) 277 S. W. 596; Belt Automobile Indemnity Association v......
  • Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Davis, No. 5619.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • July 9, 1940
    ...to answer pecuniary engagements than the return of an execution unsatisfied." To the same effect are Knabe v. Independence Indemnity Co., 144 A. 179, 7 N.J.Misc. 93; Edwards v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 11 La.App. 176, 123 So. 162. Other authorities hold that the sheriff's return......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT