How have the courts interpreted the attachable debt provisions of the attachment statute in relation to an automobile liability policy?

Three of the seven members of the court dissented, arguing that the obligation of the insurer is a 'contingent undertaking which does not fall within the definition of attachable debt contained in [the attachment statute] . . ..' (17 N.Y.2d at p. 115, 269 N.Y.S.2d at p. 103, 216 N.E.2d at p. 315.) The dissent also stated that 'to base jurisdiction on the mere existence of an automobile liability policy, even though the promises in it are not yet due, is to allow a direct action against the insurer,' and emphasized that 'where the grounds to obtain jurisdiction are tenuous,' the court should refrain from approving a 'direct action' against the insurer in 'the guise of 'in rem' jurisdiction over a nonresident motorist . . ..' (17 N.Y.2d at p. 117, 269 N.Y.S.2d at p. 105, 216 N.E.2d at p. 317.)

Simpson v. Loehmann