You are here: / / THE $2,000,000 REPLACEMENT INSURANCE POLICY WAS CANCELLED FOR NON-PAYMENT...

THE $2,000,000 REPLACEMENT INSURANCE POLICY WAS CANCELLED FOR NON-PAYMENT JUST HOURS BEFORE PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY THE INSURED’S CAR, THE FACT THAT A PREMIUM SUFFICIENT FOR THE PRIOR $1,000,000 POLICY HAD BEEN PAID WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the umbrella policy had been cancelled for non-payment just hours before plaintiff (Garcia) was struck by the car owned by the insured, Rakowski. The Second Department rejected the argument that the insurance contract was divisible. The GEICO policy in effect was a $2,000,000 umbrella policy which represented an increase from a prior $1,000,000 policy. The additional premium ($199) for the $2,000,000 policy had not been paid, but the premium in an amount equal to the premium for the prior $1,000,000 policy ($306) had been paid. The Second Department held that the $1,000,000 coverage was no longer available. Only the $2,000,000 policy was in effect, and that was cancelled for failure to pay the additional $199 premium:

Garcia argues, and our dissenting colleagues would conclude, that, because of how the premiums were set out in the Amended Declarations, there is an ambiguity as to whether Rakowski received a policy for $2,000,000 or $1,000,000, or as to whether the policy was divisible or severable as to the amount of coverage. We disagree. The fact that the premium was separately stated for the increase in the coverage limit is irrelevant here. The $1,000,000 renewal proposal of the policy from the previous year had already been sent out before Rakowski asked for an increase in the amount of coverage to $2,000,000. The “Amended Declarations,” which, by their terms, “SUPERSEDE[D] ANY PREVIOUS DECLARATION” for the policy period beginning October 10, 2005, were sent to Rakowski after she asked for the changes to her policy. Thus, the additional billing, which separated the original premium from the amount attributable to the increase, was unremarkable and did not give rise to an ambiguity in the policy that Rakowski had asked for and GEICO agreed to provide: a liability limit of $2,000,000 as of the beginning of the new policy period. Garcia is not seeking to divide Rakowski’s policy, but, in effect, to rewrite it to provide what Rakowski never asked for: a policy with coverage of only $1,000,000.

As Garcia points out, forfeiture is not favored in the law… , and, where cancellation of an entire policy would result in forfeiture, courts may be reluctant to hold that an insurance contract is not divisible … . There is, however, no forfeiture here. Rakowski asked for, and received, a $2,000,000 policy, and she had $2,000,000 in coverage from the outset of the policy period, October 10, 2005. Because she only paid part of the premium, her coverage was cancelled, upon notice, when the prorated premium for the coverage she contracted for was exhausted. In other words, Rakowski got everything she paid for, and she forfeited nothing. That Rakowski “just missed” being insured for the injuries caused to Garcia is unfortunate, but nonetheless irrelevant to this analysis. GEICO sent its cancellation notice more than six months before Rakowski’s vehicle struck Garcia. We are not free to alter the meaning of the policy to avoid the result caused by Rakowski’s nonpayment of the premium for her $2,000,000 policy … . Garcia v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 05202, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

You might also like
TWO OF THE COUNTS TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS ALLEGED, THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THEREFORE THE MOTION TO VACATE THE CONVICTION WAS PROCEDURALLY BARRED, STRONG DISSENT.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE FLOOR OF THE BUILDING UNDER RENOVATION WHEN HE WENT IN TO GET A TOOL FOR HIS WORK ON AN ADJACENT BUILDING, HE WAS PERFORMING DUTIES ANCILLARY TO THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE MEDICAL RECORDS WAS NOT ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THERE IS CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE IN A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE, EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION PRACTICES DOES NOT PROVE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE AREA WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). ​
ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL DESCRIBING ‘A MAN WITH A GUN’ AND DESCRIBING THE MAN’S CAR, INCLUDING THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY STOPPING THE CAR, APPROACHING WITH GUNS DRAWN, AND FRISKING THE DEFENDANT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE GRANTED, CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF PETITIONER’S EXCESSIVE-FORCE CLAIM AGAINST THE POLICE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY IN FILING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THAT PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE WAS NOT DETERMINATIVE; THE APPLICATION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BASED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON GROUNDS NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THOSE GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT HELD A HEARSAY STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF WAS ADMISSIBLE AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; THE FIRST DEPARTMENT RULED THE STATEMENT WAS NOT MADE “UNDER STRESS OF EXCITEMENT” AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE (FIRST 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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING CONSTITUTED... DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF...