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
30-Day Time-Limit for Bringing Article 78 Proceeding Pursuant to Public Health Law Runs from Date of Determination, Not Date of Written Notice of Determination
BUT FOR TEST FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE IS NOT THE SAME AS SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, IT IS ENOUGH THAT AN ATTORNEY’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTE A PROXIMATE CAUSE.
THE NEW JERSEY ORDER AND JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCORDED FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN THE NEW YORK FORECLOSURE ACTION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT). ​
COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE APPROPRIATE FACTORS BEFORE PROCEEDING TO TRIAL IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE, DEFENDANT HAD MADE ALL PRIOR APPEARANCES AND NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE AT THE TRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A BAR EMPLOYEE AND SUED THE BAR FOR BREACH OF A DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, WHICH WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY, NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION, WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY, WHICH ALTHOUGH INCONSISTENT WITH NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO SCHEDULE VISITATION (THIRD DEPT).
Collective Bargaining Agreement Unambiguous—Lifetime Health Benefits Mandated
Sex Offender May Not Avoid Civil Commitment Proceeding by Renouncing Citizenship and Leaving the Country

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 ...