Werner v. Commonwealth Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 90.,90. |
| Citation | 160 A. 547 |
| Parties | WERNER et al. v. COMMONWEALTH CASUALTY CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by May Werner and husband against the Commonwealth Casualty Company. Judgment for plaintiffs (156 A. 116, 9 N. J. Misc. R 963), and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Morrison, Lloyd & Morrison, of Hackensack (Francis V. D. Lloyd, of Hackensack, of counsel), for appellant.
Breslin & Breslin, of Lyndhurst (John J. Breslin, Jr., of Lyndhurst, of counsel), for respondents.
While two questions are sought to be presented to this record, there is but one available to the appellant, and that is whether the insurance company's policy was canceled in the manner specified in the policy itself.
The action was by the Werners to recover from the casualty company the amount of a judgment which they had recovered for injuries received at the hands of the assured, Joseph Bongiorno, and the company's answer was that at the time of the accident the insurance policy had been canceled. It is the sufficiency of the proof to establish cancellation that was before the trial court and is presented here.
The policy contained this provision respecting cancellation:
The company sent a notice of cancellation by registered letter requiring the personal receipt of the assured to 102 Sherman avenue, Clifton, the address specified in the policy. The letter was never delivered, but was returned unopened to the insurance company by the postal authorities with the post office indorsement, "Returned to the writer unclaimed from Clifton, N. J."
Judge Caffrey, hearing the case without a jury, determined that this was not sufficient to effect a cancellation of the policy as required by its terms. The insurance company appeals, and contends that this was an erroneous construction of the cancellation provision of the policy, and cites the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Raiken v. Commercial Casualty Co. (1926) 135 A. 479, 480.
It seems to us that the notice of cancellation must be "mailed to" (using the words of the policy), if mailed at all, in such form of mailing as would be reasonably expected to effectively reach the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medford v. Pacific Nat. Fire Ins. Co.
...Ins. Co., 129 Misc. 536, 221 N.Y.S. 38, 39. And in Werner v. Commonwealth Casualty Co., 156 A. 116, 9 N.J.Misc. 963, affirmed 109 N.J.L. 119, 160 A. 547, the court held since there was no provision in the policy for sending a cancelation notice by registered mail, the insurer, by sending by......
-
Gerard v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.
...to the extent of the policy limits.' While we are aware of minority authority tending to support this view (Werner v. Commonwealth Casualty Co., 109 N.J.L. 119, 160 A. 547; Annot. 64 A.L.R.2d 982, 987-988, 993), we do not believe that it rests on a sound and logical basis. The Massachusetts......
-
Westmoreland v. General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp.
...receipt of the addressee required is not such notice as complies with a policy provision for notice by mail. Werner v. Commonwealth Casualty Co., 109 N.J.L. 119, 121, 160 A. 547; Kamille v. Home Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 129 Misc. 536, 538, 221 N.Y.S. 38. Those cases might be distinguished fr......
-
Durkin v. Siegel
...Watts, 12 Ala.App. 518, 522, 67 So. 758; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Riley, 168 Md. 430, 436-437, 178 A. 250; Werner v. Commonwealth Cas. Co., 109 N.J.L. 119, 121-122, 160 A. 547. Cf. Fields v. Western Millers Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 182 Misc. 895, 897-898, 50 N.Y.S.2d 70. Public policy may supp......