209 A.D. 337 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1924
The State Industrial Board has found that Edward H. Amish sustained injuries on December 13, 1922, while employed as a driver by George Amish. There is evidence sufficient to sustain the award against George Amish.
The insurance carrier takes the objection that it has no policy covering George Amish as employer, but that its policy is issued to George Amish & Son. It is undisputed that the policy is written in the name of George Amish and Edward Amish, doing business as George Amish & Son and the insurance had been carried in that name since 1918, prior to which time it was carried in the name of George Amish. Edward Amish, one of the partners, is an employer and not an employee. (LeClear v. Smith, 207 App. Div. 71.) The terms of the policy, naming the insured, are not ambiguous and the policy covers only the business conducted by the firm composed of George Amish and Edward Amish and does not cover a business conducted by George Amish individually. George Amish and George Amish & Son are two separate entities. (Hartigan v. Casualty Company of America, 227 N. Y. 175.)
The award should be affirmed as against the employer, George Amish, but should be reversed and the claim dismissed as against the insurance carrier, without costs against the State Industrial Board.
All concur.
Award affirmed as against the employer, George Amish, and reversed and claim dismissed as against the insurance carrier, without costs.