Case ID: ny_237/html/0573-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

B. & B. Trucking, Inc., Appellant, v. Home Fire and Marine Insurance Company of California, Respondent.
    
      Pleading — insurance — action to recover on policy of automobile fire insurance — sufficiency of defense of cancellation.
    
    
      B. & B. Trucking, Inc., v. Home F. & M. Ins. Co., 207 App. Div. 846, affirmed.
    (Argued January 7, 1924;
    decided February 19, 1924.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial depart-merit, entered November 16, 1923, which unanimously affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to strike out a separate defense set up in the answer. The action was to recover upon a policy of automobile fire insurance. The answer set up as a separate defense that prior to the loss the policy had been canceled pursuant to its terms.
    The following question was certified: “ Is the first separate and distinct defense contained in paragraphs fifth to eighth inclusive of the answer herein sufficient in law on the face thereof.”
    
      Chauncey E. Treadwell for appellant.
    
      Leo Levy and Harold R. Medina for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

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