Case Name: CONNERS MARINE CO. v. NORTHWESTERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1936-05-21
Citations: 16 F. Supp. 626
Docket Number: 
Parties: CONNERS MARINE CO. v. NORTHWESTERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 16
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
CONNERS MARINE CO. v. NORTHWESTERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.
District Court, S. D. New York.
May 21, 1936.
Thomas A. McDonald, of New York City, for Conners Marine Co.
Bigham, Englair, Jones & Houston, of New York City, for Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

Opinion:
KNOX, District Judge.
The motion to dismiss the complaint for its failure to state a cause of action must he sustained. In my opinion, pontoons cannot properly be included in the category either of hulls and barges, or of hulls and cargoes. A pontoon falls within an entirely different designation. Although water borne, it is quite distinct from a hull, barge, or cargo, in both functions and reality. Furthermore, as I read the policy of insurance, it does not cover the loss which came to plaintiff as a result of a towage contract. Towage is not included within the liability of the assured "as owners, managing owners, operatives and/or operating agents, charterers, carriers, warehousemen, stevedores, wharfingers, forwarders, or freighters as imposed by law." Each of the enumerated capacities is without the inclusiveness of a tow-age contract.