Case Name: Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, Limited, of Zurich, Switzerland, Respondent, v. Union Ferry Company of New York and Brooklyn, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1922-11-10
Citations: 203 A.D. 168
Docket Number: 
Parties: Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, Limited, of Zurich, Switzerland, Respondent, v. Union Ferry Company of New York and Brooklyn, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 203
Pages: 168–171

Head Matter:
Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, Limited, of Zurich, Switzerland, Respondent, v. Union Ferry Company of New York and Brooklyn, Appellant.
Second Department,
November 10, 1922.
Insurance—liability insurance—action to recover premium — defense that by mutual mistake policy covered other liability — question of fact whether mistake existed as to additional liability and whether defendant was negligent in not discovering it—decisions of United States Supreme Court did not render contract void.
In an action to recover the premium due on a liability insurance policy in which the defense interposed was that the policy was intended to cover liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law only and that by mutual mistake it was written to cover additional liabilities and that the premium demanded was by reason thereof in excess of that which would have been due on the policy covering liability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law only, it was error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff at the close of the trial, for the evidence presented a question of fact as to whether the defendant’s claim was true and if true, whether it was negligent in failing to discover the error in the policy.
Although the defendant was a maritime company, the decisions of the United States Supreme Court (Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 id. 149) did not render the contract void, for the defendant was at all times protected from liability, and if the effect of those decisions removed defendant's employees from the application of the Workmen’s
Compensation Law, still the risk which existed before was not destroyed.
Kelly, J., dissents, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, Union Ferry Company of New York and Brooklyn, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 22d day of March, 1922, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court, and also from a denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
George P. Hotaling, for the appellant.
Alfred W. Andrews, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The evidence in this case presents a question of fact as to the nature of the contract between the parties to the action.
Admittedly, plaintiff issued and delivered to the defendant a combination policy covering liability under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and also other employers' liability. Defendant insists that the contract ordered was to cover its liability under the Workmen's Compensation Law and that alone. It was for the jury to determine whether defendant's claim was true. If this be true, there was no contract so far as the additional insurance was concerned, and defendant would then be entitled to a rescission of that portion of the policy issued, unless defendant was negligent in failing to discover the error in the policy. (Curtis v. Albee, 167 N. Y. 360, 365; Salomon v. North British & M. Ins. Co., 215 id. 214, 218.)
Whether defendant was negligent in this respect should also have been left to the jury. (Hay v. Star Fire Ins. Co., 77 N. Y. 235; International Ferry Co. v. American Fidelity Co., 207 id. 350.)
The decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (244 U. S. 205) and Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart (253 id. 149) did not render the contract between the parties void. Defendant was at all times protected from liability, and if the effect of those decisions removed defendant's employees from the application of the Workmen's Compensation Law, still the risk which existed before was not destroyed. (New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Olcott, 165 App. Div. 603.)
Defendant has received the benefit of the policy issued and must pay the premiums as therein specified for the insurance furnished under the Workmen's Compensation Law; whether it shall pay more depends upon the findings of the jury upon the questions to be submitted as here indicated.
The judgment and order should be reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
Blackmar, P. J., Manning, Kelby and Young, JJ., concur; Kelly, J., dissents and reads for affirmance.