
    Firemen’s Fund Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Pennant Finance Corporation and Others, Respondents. Greene & Goetschius, Inc., Appellant, v. Pennant Finance Corporation and Others, Respondents.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    January 15, 1925.
    Insurance — casualty insurance — actions to recover premiums for additional indorsements on casualty insurance policy — each indorsement constitutes separate contract of insurance — plaintiff may plead each indorsement as separate cause of action in Municipal Court of City of New York, though all causes of action could be united in one complaint in Supreme Court.
    Where different taxicabs are insured for two different beneficiaries as additional insurance under several and separate indorsements on a policy, each indorsement constitutes a separate contract of insurance.
    Accordingly, in four actions in the Municipal Court of the City of New York to recover premiums for additional indorsements upon a casualty insurance policy, the plaintiff may plead each indorsement as a separate cause of action, though the four causes of action could be united in a single complaint in the Supreme Court.
    
      Appeals by plaintiffs from four judgments of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, First District, in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs, dismissing all four complaints on ground that all four actions arose out of the same contract; that amount sued for in all four actions exceeds the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court, and that the actions were so split up to be brought within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court by bringing four separate actions on one and the same indivisible contract, besides costs. Trial by jury.
    
      Wilson Lee Cannon, for the appellants.
    
      Irving Levine, for the respondents.
   Guy, J.:

Action 190 by Firemen’s Fund Insurance Company as plaintiff, to recover forty-two dollars premium for additional indorsement dated July 27, 1923, on a taxicab policy No. 662,558. Defense, general denial.

Action 191 by Greene & Goetschius, Inc., as plaintiff, to recover $975.60 for premium for additional indorsements dated September 8, 10 and 14, 1923, on the same policy. Defense, general denial.

Action 192 by Greene & Goetschius, Inc., as plaintiff, to recover $659.20 for premium for additional indorsements dated October 9, 11,17, 18, 22, 24 and November 19,1923, on same policy. Defense, general denial.

Action 193 by Greene & Goetschius, Inc., plaintiff, to recover $845.52 for premium for additional indorsement dated December 1, 1923, on same policy. Defense, general denial.

Each indorsement covered separate and distinct taxicabs.

Where different taxicabs are insured for two different beneficiaries as additional insurance under several and separate indorsements on a policy, each indorsement constitutes a separate contract of insurance. (4 Joyce Ins. [2d ed.] § 2485a; Corporation of the London Assurance v. Paterson, Downing & Co., 106 Ga. 538, 541-543; Donley v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 184 N. Y. 107, 111.)

The fact that all the causes of action could, since the Civil Practice Act, be united in one complaint in the Supreme Court, provided that each indorsement was pleaded as a separate cause of action, does not defeat the assured’s right to plead each indorsement as a separate cause of action in the 'Municipal Court. (Akely v. Kinnicutt, 238 N. Y. 466, 471, 477.)

Judgments reversed and new trials ordered, with ten dollars costs in each case to appellants to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.  