Case ID: ny_243/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Isaiou Trading Corporation, Respondent, v. Great American Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.
    (Argued October 4, 1926;
    decided October 19, 1926.)
    
      Insurance (marine) — contract — limitation of actions — action to recover on policy of marine insurance for damage to merchandise —• defenses that action was not brought within time limited by policy and that losses did not occur while goods were in transit.
    
    
      Isaiou Trading Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 216 App. Div. 792, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 10, 1926, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The action was to recover upon certificates of insurance issued under an open policy of marine insurance covering merchandise shipped by plaintiff from New York to Constantinople. The shipment left New York January 24, 1920, and was discharged at Constantinople March 14, 1920, but, owing to congestion at the custom house, remained on the dock until the end of November, 1920. When located the merchandise was found to be in bad condition. Plaintiff thereupon demanded of defendant’s agent a survey which took place December 11, 1920, and January 26, 1921, the reports thereon being received by plaintiff in June, 1921, whereupon the claim in suit was. made. The defenses were: (1) That the action was not commenced within one year from the date of the happening of the loss out of which plaintiff’s claim arose as required by .plaintiff’s policy of insurance and that plaintiff’s claim was, therefore, barred. (2) That the plaintiff’s loss did not occur while the goods insured were in due course of transit and that plaintiff’s loss was, therefore, beyond the scope of the policy and by a peril not insured against.
    Judgment affirmed, with costs;
    
      Arthur W. Clement, D. Roger Englar and Oscar R. Houston for appellant.
    
      S. Lawrence Miller and Watson B. Robinson for respondent.
   no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ.

Dissenting: Cardozo and McLaughlin, J J.