Kelly v. Overseas Investors, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Twin City Bank v. MUTUAL FIRE MARINE & INLAND, INS. CO. (District Court, S.D. New York 1986)
- All Star Advertising v. Reliance Ins. (La. 2005)
- General Glass Industries Corporation v. Monsour Medical Foundation (3d Cir. 1992)
- General Glass Industries Corp. v. Monsour Medical Foundation (3d Cir. 1992)
- The University Of Maryland At Baltimore v. Peat Marwick Main & Company (3d Cir. 1991)
- University of Maryland at Baltimore v. Peat Marwick Main & Co. (3d Cir. 1991)
- Murphy v. Ambassador Insurance Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1984)
- Schacht v. Brown (7th Cir. 1983)
- Schacht v. Brown (7th Cir. 1983)
- Favourite Limited v. Benedetto Cico (N.Y. 2024)
- Home Insurance v. Olympia & York Maiden Lane Co. (New York Supreme Court 1997)
- Amfesco Industries, Inc. v. Greenblatt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Public Service Truck Renting, Inc. v. Ambassador Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Corcoran v. Frank B. Hall & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- G. C. Murphy Co. v. Reserve Insurance (N.Y. 1981)
- G. C. Murphy Co. v. Reserve Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- In re Application of County Collector (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)
- Burdash v. Olsen (Ill. App. Ct. 1977)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
We agree with the Appellate Division, for the reasons stated by it, that the plaintiff has capacity to sue. However, the complaint fails to allege a valid cause of action and must be dismissed. Under the law of Pennsylvania, which is unquestionably applicable, the liquidator of a defunct insurance company may not sue to recover for damages resulting from fraudulent misrepresentations of the corporation’s assets. (See Kintner v. Connolly, 233 Pa. 5; Patterson v. Franklin, 176 Pa. 612; see, also, Wheeler v. American Nat. Bank, 338 S. W. 2d 486, 496-498, revd. on other grounds 162 Tex. 502.) It would appear that the plaintiff might be able to state a cause of action for conversion which would be valid under Pennsylvania law. (See Wheeler v. American Nat. Bank, 162 Tex. 502, supra; cf. State Bank of Pittsburg v. Kirk, 216 Pa. 452.) Therefore, leave should be granted to the plaintiff to so amend her complaint. The order shall be reversed, without costs, and,the question certified answered in the negative.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.