Case ID: misc2d_5/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bernard Blinbaum, Respondent, v. Union Marine and General Insurance Company, Limited of Liverpool, England, Appellant, et al., Defendant, Union Marine and General Insurance Company, Limited of Liverpool, England, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, Northern Assurance Company, Limited, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    October 25, 1956.
    
      David L. Maloof for defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant.
    
      Herman B. Zipser for respondent and third-party defendant-respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Although the policy issued by Northern was prior to the date of the policy issued by Union Marine, the latter policy was the specific one, insuring, as it did, against a specific peril. The court below, therefore, correctly followed the declaration of the Court of Appeals that insurance may be specific because it insures against a specific peril. (Davis Yarn Co. v. Brooklyn Yarn Dye Co., 293 N. Y. 236.)

The orders appealed from were properly made.

The judgment and orders should be affirmed, with $10 costs.

Eder, Heoht and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Judgment and orders affirmed, etc.