Utica Sanitary Milk Co. v. Cas. Co. of America
| Decision Date | 03 March 1914 |
| Citation | 104 N.E. 918,210 N.Y. 399 |
| Parties | UTICA SANITARY MILK CO. v. CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Action by the Utica Sanitary Milk Company against the Casualty Company of America. From a judgment for plaintiff, modified and affirmed by the Appellate Division (152 App. Div. 898,136 N. Y. Supp. 353), defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
The defendant, on or about March 24, 1910, issued to the plaintiff a policy of employers' liability insurance, whereby the defendant agreed to indemnify the plaintiff for twelve months thereafter from loss or liability arising from accident or injury to any of the plaintiff's employés up to a fixed amount. The policy contained the following provision: ‘The assured upon the occurrence of a casualty covered hereby shall give immediate written notice thereof, with the fullest information obtainable at the time, to the company's duly authorized local agent, or to its home office in New York City.’
On or about July 16, 1910, an accident occurred to one of the plaintiff's employés named Clark, whereby he suffered a fracture of the leg, which was a casualty within the meaning of the policy. No written notice of the accident was given to the defendant until December 5, 1910. The insurance was effected through one Albert R. Hatfield, the general agent of the defendant for the city of Utica and vicinity, and it was a part of his duty to report to the defendant any accident which might result in a claim against the company. Hatfield was a stockholder and director of the plaintiff, and was also its treasurer and general manager. He had control over the plaintiff's business, which consisted of selling and delivering milk in Utica. The fact that Hatfield was the trustee and manager of the plaintiff was known to the defendant at the time of the accident and for some time prior thereto. Hatfield knew of the accident on the day it occurred, as did also the plaintiff's president. The court also found that the notice required by the policy was not given, because the plaintiff believed that no claim would be made by Clark on account of his injury. The plaintiff paid to the injured man his wages for the three months succeeding the accident when he did not work, and on August 26, 1910, took from him a written statement to the effect that the plaintiff was free from all liability on account of his injuries. Some time later Clark made a claim upon the plaintiff for damages, and Hatfield, on December 5, 1910, gave the defendant notice of the claim by mail. This was the first notice the defendant had of the accident. Subsequently Clark sued the plaintiff, and the defendant, the casualty company, refused to undertake the defense of the action, because it had not received notice of the accident in accordance with the provisions of the policy. The action resulted in a judgment against the milk company, the plaintiff here, and this suit was brought by it to recover from the defendant casualty company the amount of the judgment and the costs of defending the action. The court found that the condition of the policy requiring immediate notice to be given of any casualty covered thereby was not waived, but decided as matter of law that no such notice was required because Hatfield, the local agent of the defendant, had actual knowledge of the accident, and ordered judgment for the plaintiff.Charles P. Ryan, of Syracuse, for appellant.
James H. Merwin, of Utica, for respondent.
CUDDEBACK (after stating the facts as above).
The plaintiff rests its case on the proposition that the knowledge which Hatfield possessed was the knowledge of the defendant, and no further notice of the accident was required by the policy. The argument is that Hatfield was the plaintiff's manager, charged with the duty of giving notice, and that he was the defendant's agent, charged with the duty of receiving such notice, and that it would have been a useless formality for Hatfield to give notice to himself, and further that the defendant had knowledge of Hatfield's dual agency.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Security Mut. Ins. Co. of New York v. Acker-Fitzsimons Corp.
...occurrence. Notice provisions in insurance policies afford the insurer an opportunity to protect itself (Utica Sanitary Milk Co. v. Casualty Co. of Amer., 210 N.Y. 399, 104 N.E. 918; 31 N.Y.Jur., Insurance, § 1261), and the giving of the required notice is a condition to the insurer's liabi......
-
Clark v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... Merritt, 55 Fla ... 462, 46 So. 1024; Utica Sanitary Milk Co. v. Casualty ... Co., 210 N.Y. 399; Wiggs ... ...
-
Clark v. Western Union Tel. Co.
...App.) 1088; Western Union v. Woniski, 84 Ark. 457, 106 S.W. 486; Western Union v. Merritt, 55 Fla. 462, 46 So. 1024; Utica Sanitary Milk Co. v. Casualty Co., 210 N.Y. 399; Wiggs v. Telegraph Co., 110 S.W. (Tex. App.) 179; Pope v. Western Union, 14 Ill. App. 531. (6) The defendant had a righ......
-
Holyoke Mut. Ins. Co. v. B. T. B. Realty Corp.
...293 N.E.2d 76): "Notice provisions in insurance policies afford the insurer an opportunity to protect itself (Utica Sanitary Milk Co. v. Casualty Co. of Amer., 210 N.Y. 399 31 N.Y.Jur., Insurance, § 1261), and the giving of the required notice is a condition to the insurer's liability. (Rus......