Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bodner v. Phoenix Indemnity Co.

Decided: September 27, 1933.

SAMUEL BODNER, SAMUEL BODNER, EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF SARAH BODNER, DECEASED, AND MORTON FOX AND JOYCE FOX, BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND, BERTHA FOX LEVINE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
PHOENIX INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



On appeal from the Supreme Court.

For the appellant, Edwards, Smith & Dawson (Raymond Dawson, of counsel).

For the respondents, Feder & Rinzler.

Trenchard

The opinion of the court was delivered by

TRENCHARD, J. The defendant, indemnity company, issued an insurance policy wherein it designated Brogan Cadillac-La Salle Company, as the named

assured. The policy, after extending its coverage to indemnify the named assured against loss arising from claims made upon the assured for damages on account of bodily injuries, death, &c., and to investigate all accidents covered by the policy, and to pay any judgment recovered against the assured in connection therewith, contained this additional coverage provision: "The term 'assured' shall include any other person while riding in or legally operating any automobile owned by the assured and covered under said policy and any other person or organization legally responsible for its operation, provided (a) it is being used with the permission of the named assured."

The complaint in this action alleged, among other things, that one Adolph Walter, Jr., while operating an automobile covered under the policy and owned by the named assured, with the latter's permission, collided with an automobile owned by Samuel Bodner, as a result of which Bodner and the other occupants of his car were injured, for which suit was brought against Walter and judgments recovered; that execution was issued against Walter, which was returned unsatisfied by reason of his insolvency.

The policy also provided that "the insolvency or bankruptcy of the assured shall not release the company from the payment of damages for injuries sustained or loss suffered by any person or persons as the result of an accident occurring while this policy is in full force and effect; and in case execution against the assured is returned unsatisfied in an action brought by the injured, or his or her personal representative in case death results from the accident, because of such insolvency or bankruptcy, then an action may be maintained by the injured person, or his or her personal representative, against the company under the terms of the policy for the amount of the judgment in the said action, not exceeding the limits of the company's liability expressed in this policy and subject to all its other terms and limitations."

The execution having been returned unsatisfied by reason of insolvency, thereafter this suit was brought against the defendant insurance company to recover under the policy the amounts due on such judgments, and resulted in judgments

in favor of the plaintiffs from which the defendant now appeals.

We think that the trial court did not err in refusing defendant's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.