You are here: / / NOTIFICATION OF AN INTENTION TO CANCEL AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY IF...

NOTIFICATION OF AN INTENTION TO CANCEL AN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE POLICY IF A QUESTIONNAIRE IS NOT SUBMITTED IS NOT A VALID CANCELLATION, THE POLICY REMAINED IN EFFECT DESPITE THE INSURED’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE QUESTIONNAIRE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s (GEICO’s) purported cancellation of the automobile insurance policy was invalid for two reasons: (1) the notice of cancellation was insufficient; and (2) the reason for the cancellation was not among those allowed by the Insurance Law. GEICO notified the insured (Islam) the policy would be cancelled unless Islam submitted a completed questionnaire by a certain date. Islam did not submit the questionnaire:

“[A] mere expression of a purpose or intention to cancel in the future is not sufficient; that is, it must be one of actual cancellation, not of future conditional cancellation, or of doubtful meaning as to time or purpose” … . The purported cancellation notice reflected a mere intention to cancel in the future if Islam did not provide a completed business use questionnaire.

In any event, cancellation is permitted only upon specified grounds once a covered policy has been in effect for at least 60 days (see Insurance Law § 3425[c][1][A-C]). Insurance Law § 3425(c)(1)(C) requires the “discovery of fraud or material misrepresentation in obtaining the policy or in the presentation of a claim thereunder” to cancel an automobile insurance policy during the required policy period of one year (Insurance Law § 3425[c][1][C]). Here, there is no dispute that the GEICO policy had been in effect for at least 60 days at the time of the purported cancellation. GEICO did not establish that it had discovered any fraud or material misrepresentation committed by Islam; thus, GEICO did not sustain its burden of demonstrating that its notice of cancellation complied with the statutory requirements of Insurance Law § 3425(c)(1) … . Matter of Unitrin Direct Ins. Co. v Barrow, 2020 NY Slip Op 04481, Second Dept 8-12-20

 

You might also like
Failure to Link Specific Monetary Loss to Acts or Omissions of the Attorneys Required Dismissal
DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FAILED TO FILE ITS CURRENT ADDRESS WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE SINCE 2011; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ALLEGING IT WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT SELF-INTEREST OR SELF-DEALING, AN ATTORNEY CAN NOT BE LIABLE TO A THIRD PERSON FOR INDUCING THE CLIENT TO BREACH A CONTRACT WITH THAT THIRD PERSON (SECOND DEPT).
LESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LAUNDRY ROOM COULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE WASHING MACHINE, LESSEE DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
Election of Remedies Provision of Labor Law 740 (Retaliation in Employment) Does Not Bar a Separate Claim Pursuant to Labor Law 203-c (Placement of Cameras in Employee Restrooms)
DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT AND THERE WAS NO REASONABLE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE IN WHICH DEFENDANT’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANT’S SNOW REMOVAL MAY HAVE EXACERBATED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
Failure to Provide Cover Sheet Fatal to Designating Petition

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

RESPONDENT IS A DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER REQUIRING CONFINEMENT, NOT STRICT AND... DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PERSONALLY PRESENT AT RESENTENCING ABSENT WAIVER,...