Case ID: ny_237/html/0543-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harry Taylor, Respondent, v. National Surety Company, Appellant.
    
      Insurance — burglary — defense that insured failed to keep books.
    
    
      Taylor v. National Surety Co., 206 App. Div. 787, affirmed.
    (Argued November 23, 1923;
    decided December 27, 1923.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 3, 1923, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict. The action was to recover upon a policy of burglary insurance. The answer denied all of the material allegations of the complaint and set up as an affirmative defense that the respondent had failed to comply with the provision of the policy known as subdivision 5 of special agreements which provides that “ the company shall not be hable * * * unless books and accounts are kept by the assured in such manner that the - exact amount of loss may be accurately determined therefrom by the company.”
    
      George A. Orr for appellant.
    
      Francis T. Findlay for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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