Charles J. Witherstine, Respondent v. the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, of London, England…

Summary

The Court reversed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the automobile liability policy did not cover the accident because the clause requiring the vehicle to be "operated by owner for private purposes only" was interpreted to mean the owner must be the driver. The Court reasoned that "operate" in the policy has its ordinary meaning as used in the Highway Law, referring to the personal act of driving, not merely directing the driver. Justice McLaughlin dissented, arguing for a broader interpretation of "operate" in favor of the plaintiff.