COUGAR SPORT INC v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF MIDWEST (2001)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

COUGAR SPORT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF the MIDWEST, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: November 15, 2001

ROSENBERGER, J.P., WILLIAMS, ELLERIN, BUCKLEY and MARLOW, JJ.

Dennis T. D'Antonio, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Kevin F. Buckley, for Defendant-Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered July 28, 2000, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly found that plaintiff insured had entrusted its merchandise to Yankee Clipper Warehousing, Inc., and thus, that the loss of plaintiff's merchandise due to Yankee's theft or dishonesty came within the exclusion to the coverage afforded by plaintiff's insurance policy with defendant for loss attributable to the dishonest or criminal act of a person to whom the insured has entrusted its goods (see, Abrams v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 269 N.Y. 90, 199 N.E. 15). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, it is clear as a matter of law that Yankee can not be considered a “carrier for hire”, and, accordingly, that the loss occasioned by Yankee's conduct does not fall within the exception to the exclusion from coverage whose applicability has been established by defendant.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network