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.

Steliga v. Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Co.

Decided: May 18, 1934.

MARY STELIGA, BY ANDREY STELIGA, HER NEXT FRIEND, RESPONDENT,
v.
THE METROPOLITAN CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT



On appeal from the First District Court of Union county.

For the appellant, Mark Townsend, Jr. (Cyril J. Galvin, of counsel).

For the respondent, Kenneth G. Caughman (Frank J. Burns, of counsel).

Before Justices Parker, Lloyd and Perskie.

Lloyd

The opinion of the court was delivered by

LLOYD, J. The action in this case was based upon a policy of insurance issued to one Teofil Halecki and which contained the following provision:

"The policy to which this endorsement is attached is amended to conform with the requirements of chapter 116, laws of 1929 of the State of New Jersey, and all laws amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto which may be or become effective while this policy is in force, as respects any liability for bodily injury or death or liability for property damage covered by this policy, but only to the extent of the coverage and the limits of liability, required by said chapter and only with respect to the motor vehicles disclosed in the policy.

"It is further agreed that to the extent of the coverage required by said chapter and within the limits stated in said chapter, this policy is subject to the following additional provisions contained in said chapter:

"(a) The liability of the company under this policy shall become absolute whenever loss or damage covered by the policy occurs, and the satisfaction by the assured of a final judgment for such loss or damage shall not be a condition precedent to the right or duty of the company to make payment on account of such loss or damage. Upon the recovery of a final judgment against the assured for any such loss or damage the judgment creditor shall be entitled to have the insurance provided by this endorsement applied to the satisfaction of the judgment."

Chapter 116 of the laws of 1929, page 195, provides in substance that the commissioner of motor vehicles shall require from persons who shall have been convicted of violation of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicle act, or who shall have been concerned in a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of or injury to any person or damage to property to the extent of at least $100, proof of financial responsibility, which may take the form of policies of insurance against loss for damage to person or property, and which policy must contain the provisions already recited as incorporated in the policy of insurance issued in this case.

In the present case judgment was recovered by the plaintiff Mary Steliga against Halecki, and without issuing execution against the defendant she ...


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.