New York Court of Appeals, 1982

Henderson v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 11, 1982

55 N.Y.2d 947; 434 N.E.2d 247; 449 N.Y.S.2d 178; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3129

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Ulico Casualty Co. (District Court, E.D. New York 2005)
National Union Fire Insurance v. Ambassador Group, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 1990)
CHS, Inc. v. Land O'Lakes Purina Feed, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Topliffe v. US Art Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Rosner v. Paley (New York Supreme Court 1982)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff cites no provision of the fire insurance policy to call upon Aetna to indemnify or defend him against suit or claim, including, of course, one in the nature of Rezey’s counterclaim. The liability policy, also issued to plaintiff by Aetna, is not at issue as plaintiff did not assert any rights under it in his complaint:

As to plaintiff’s theory that Aetna had no right to sue in his name, plaintiff, by his amended complaint, conceded that defendant “chose to commence this action in the name of the plaintiff insured as was its right under the terms of the policy” (emphasis added). The defendant therefore can*949not be faulted because Rezey elected to interpose his counterclaim. In sum, Aetna, in bringing the suit in plaintiff’s name, did no more than was authorized.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.