Case ID: ny_226/html/0596-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alice B. Wikoff, Respondent, v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, Appellant.
    
      Wikoff v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 177 App. Div. 951, affirmed.
    (Argued March 11, 1919;
    decided April 8, 1919.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered March 30, 1917, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover upon a policy of accident insurance. The issue tendered by the defense presented the inquiry whether or not the decedent violated the following clause of the policy: “ If the assured shall sustain any loss covered hereby while in an occupation classed by the company as more hazardous than that stated in the said schedule, or while doing an act or thing pertaining to any occupation so classed, except ordinary duties about his residence or while engaged in recreation, this policy shall not be forfeited thereby but the liability of the company hereunder shall be only for the amount of insurance that the premium paid would purchase in such more hazardous class, according to the table of rates and classification of risks filed-with the insurance department of the state "wherein this policy is issued or delivered prior to the occurrence of the injury for which claim is made.” It -was established by the evidence that the assured was killed by the explosion of a stick of dynamite in his hands which was being used in the excavation of a well.
    
      J ames Coupe for appellant.
    
      Almet Beed Latson for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hogan, Cabdozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: His cock, Ch. J., Chase and McLaughlin, JJ. _