Conners Marine Co. v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins.

District Court, S.D. New York
Conners Marine Co. v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins., 16 F. Supp. 626 (1936)
1936 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1836

Conners Marine Co. v. Northwestern Fire & Marine Ins.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Reference

Full Case Name
CONNERS MARINE CO. v. NORTHWESTERN FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.
Cited By
2 cases
Status
Published