Case ID: ny_229/html/0642-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Calvin D. Bertine, as Administrator of the Estate of Howard F. Bertine, Deceased, Appellant, v. The North River Insurance Company of the City of New York, Respondent.
    
      Insurance —■ destruction by fire of patterns while being used in foundry manufacturing parts for assured — insurer freed from, liability by clause in policy that it did not cover in premises where assured’s property was being manufactured.
    
    
      Bertine v. North River Ins. Co., 180 App. Div. 866, affirmed.
    (Argued October 8, 1920;
    decided October 22, 1920.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered January 7, 1918, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and directing a dismissal of the complaint. The action was to recover upon a policy of fire insurance, insuring plaintiff’s assignor, which contained the following clause: “It is understood and agreed that this policy does not cover in premises where assured’s property is being manufactured.” The assured’s place of business was in New York city. It was engaged in the manufacture of. machinery and printing presses. In this business certain patterns, were used. These patterns were sent to a Syracuse foundry to have the parts made in accordance therewith, and the completed parts were returned to the insured in New York. By reason of a fire in the Syracuse foundry these patterns were burned, and it is to recover for the loss of them that this action was brought. The Appellate Division held that the-insurer was freed from liability by the provision that the policy did not' cover in premises where the property of the assured was being manufactured.
    
      Francis C. ' Nickerson and Lewis H. Freedman for appellant.
    
      Joab H. Banton for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Cardozo and Crane, JJ.