Case ID: ny_235/html/0517-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The North River Steamboat Company, Respondent, v. The Home Insurance Company, Appellant.
    
      Marine insurance — contract — provision in policy limiting use of vessel to certain waters but with permission to go into drydock — policy covers vessel while in nearest available drydock though outside district limited in policy.
    
    
      North River Steamboat Co. v. Home Ins. Co., 200 App. Div.-> 915, affirmed.
    (Argued January 15, 1923;
    decided January 30, 1923.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered February 27, 1922, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court. The action was to recover upon a policy insuring a steam ferryboat against loss, which contained the following provisions: “ Warranted confined to the me and navigation of the waters of the Hudson River, not south of Piermont, New York. ■* * * With privilege to lay up and make additions, alterations and repairs, and to go in dry-dock.” The vessel sunk February 6, 1920, while at drydock at Hoboken, N. J., the nearest available drydock at that time of the year, those north of Piermont being unavailable on account of ice. Plaintiff contended that although the above written words confined the limits of the policy to waters of the Hudson river not south of Piermont, yet the subsequent printed words conferring the privilege to go in drydock enlarged these limits so that the vessel could be sent to the nearest available drydock at the time plaintiff chose to go there, although it might be beyond such Emits. Defendant contended that this privilege to go in drydock meant that the drydock must be within the above Emits, and did not permit the plaintiff to send the vessel outside of the territory merely because at the time when plaintiff chose to make repairs the nearest available drydock was outside the Emits.
    
      Pierre M. Brown and James M. Gorman for appellant.
    
      Mortimer B. Patterson, William A. Purrington, Frank J. McConnell and James D. Brown for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.