You are here: / / Agent for Insurance Company Properly Found to Be an “Employee”...

Agent for Insurance Company Properly Found to Be an “Employee” Entitled to Unemployment Insurance

The Third Department determined claimant, who sold insurance as an agent for Coface North America Insurance Company, was an “employee” entitled to unemployment insurance:

Whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a factual question for the Board to resolve, and its determination in this regard – if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole – will not be disturbed … . “While no single factor is determinative, control over the results produced or the means used to achieve those results are pertinent considerations, with the latter being more important” … .

Here, there is ample evidence to support the Board’s finding that Coface exercised control over numerous aspects of claimant’s work. Coface, among other things, assigned claimant a sales territory …, provided her with sales leads that she was required to pursue…, precluded claimant from representing other insurers without Coface’s prior written consent …, directed that claimant devote all of her efforts to generating business for Coface, reserved the right to accept or reject insurance proposals submitted by claimant …, required claimant to work under the direction and supervision of its regional agent, set claimant’s commission rate, paid claimant a bimonthly draw against her commissions that she was not required to refund … and contributed to her health insurance premiums … . Additionally, claimant testified that Coface scheduled her workday, required her to work out of its regional office during her first year of employment, insisted that she keep her supervisor apprised of her whereabouts at all times and required her to attend quarterly sales meetings … . Such proof, in our view, is more than sufficient to support the Board’s finding of an employment relationship between Coface and claimant (and those similarly situated) – notwithstanding the existence of other proof in the record that could support a contrary conclusion …, including a provision in the parties’ agreements identifying claimant as an independent contractor… . Matter of Joyce …, 517162, 3rd Dept 4-3-14

 

You might also like
THE EDUCATION LAW PERMITS, BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO STUDENTS ATTENDING NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS WHEN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE NOT IN SESSION (THIRD DEPT). ​
PURSUANT TO ECL 23-2711, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A MINING PERMIT BECAUSE THE TOWN LAW PROHIBITED MINING (THIRD DEPT).
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, BASED IN PART ON THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT OF RESPONDENT’S CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
ADMISSION AND ALLOCUTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
FAILURE TO ALLEGE AN OVERT ACT IN THE CONSPIRACY COUNT REQUIRED REVERSAL AND DISMISSAL OF THE COUNT AS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT).
​ THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE TRAFFIC STOP, THE 40-MINUTE DETENTION, THE CALLING OF DEFENDANT’S PAROLE OFFICER, AND THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR BY THE PAROLE OFFICER, WERE VALID; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE JUSTIFICATION FOR FURTHER DETENTION AROSE ONLY AFTER THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LIMITED DETENTION BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STOP HAD DISSIPATED (THIRD DEPT). ​
CLAIMANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT ATTEMPTS TO RETURN TO WORK TO WARRANT BENEFITS; TOTAL INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY CLAIM SENT BACK, JUDGE AND BOARD FAILED TO DISCUSS THE RELEVANT FACTORS IN THE DENIAL OF THAT CLAIM.
ALL EIGHT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS EXAMINED VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIRMENT TO PROVIDE A SOUND EDUCATION TO THE AT-RISK STUDENT POPULATIONS (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Respondents Must Demonstrate Why Request Not Specific Enough For Extraction... Elements of Prima Facie Tort Explained—Disinterested Malevolence Not ...