You are here: / Insurance Law

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

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) COVERAGE WAS GREATER THAN THE BODILY INJURY COVERAGE IN THE TORTFEASOR’S POLICY; SO THE SUM PROVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S POLICY WAS TRIGGERED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant-insurer’s supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits were triggered in the traffic accident case. The (SUM) coverage under plaintiff’s policy was greater than the bodily injury coverage in the  tortfeasor’s policy. Plaintiff had settled for the tortfeasor’s policy limit and then sought to collect SUM benefits under his policy. Plaintiff’s insurer had determined the policy was not triggered and Supreme Court agreed:

“Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2) was enacted to allow an insured to obtain the same level of protection for himself [or herself] and his [or her] passengers which he [or she] purchased to protect himself [or herself] against liability to others’ ” … . It is well settled that, “[u]nder Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (2), an insured’s [SUM] coverage is triggered when the limit of the insured’s bodily injury liability coverage is greater than the same coverage in the tortfeasor’s policy”… . More particularly, when determining whether SUM coverage is triggered, “[t]he necessary analytical step . . . is to place the insured in the shoes of the tortfeasor and ask whether the insured would have greater bodily injury coverage under the circumstances than the tortfeasor actually has” … , which “requires a comparison of each policy’s bodily injury liability coverage as it in fact operates under the policy terms applicable to that particular coverage” … .

Here, a comparison of the two policies at issue, in light of the circumstances of this case, demonstrates that plaintiff would be afforded greater coverage under his policy than under the tortfeasor’s policy. The tortfeasor’s policy would have provided plaintiff with only $100,000 of coverage for bodily injury, whereas plaintiff’s policy would have provided him with up to $300,000 of coverage for bodily injury. Although plaintiff’s SUM benefits would be reduced by the amount paid to his wife under the policy’s $300,000 per accident maximum, he is still afforded more coverage under his policy than under the tortfeasor’s policy because the bodily injury limit for an accident in which two people are injured would be $200,000 under the tortfeasor’s policy, which is less than the coverage afforded by plaintiff’s policy. Consequently, the SUM provision of plaintiff’s policy was triggered … . Gross v Travelers Ins., 2020 NY Slip Op 04253, Fourth Dept 7-24-20

 

, ,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS’ INSURER OBTAINED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT (BY DEFAULT) THAT IT WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE, UNDER EITHER CLAIM OR ISSUE PRECLUSION, PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, after a comprehensive analysis of res judicata and collateral estoppel, refusing to follow the Second Department, determined a default judgment in a declaratory judgment action brought against plaintiff by defendant driver/owner’s insurer (Nationwide) did not preclude plaintiff’s subsequent personal injury action against defendants. Plaintiff alleged he was walking his motorcycle across a street when he was struct by defendants’ vehicle. Nationwide brought the declaratory judgment action to obtain a ruling it was not obligated to pay no-fault benefits to plaintiff and plaintiff did not appear in that action:

Claim preclusion prevents relitigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, of a cause of action arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions that either were raised or could have been raised in the prior proceeding … . As the Court of Appeals has stressed, this “identity” requirement is a “linchpin of res judicata,” which applies “only when a claim between the parties has been previously brought to a final conclusion'” … . Stated differently, the “doctrine of res judicata only bars additional actions between the same parties on the same claims based upon the same harm” … . …

Issue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action … . Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action … . There is a limit to the reach of issue preclusion, however. In accordance with due process, it can be asserted only against a party to the first lawsuit, or one in privity with a party … .

… .”An issue is not actually litigated” for collateral estoppel purposes “if, for example, there has been a default” … . …

Claim preclusion cannot apply here, because plaintiff and defendants are litigating a claim against each other for the first time. * * * Defendants’ rights to be defended and indemnified by Nationwide remained intact regardless of the outcome of the no-fault benefits dispute. Rojas v Romanoff, 2020 NY Slip Op 04237, First Dept 7-23-20

 

, , , ,

THE REGULATION REQUIRING NEW YORK HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES TO COVER MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTION SERVICES, WHICH INCLUDES AN EXEMPTION FOR ‘RELIGIOUS EMPLOYERS,’ IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND WAS PROPERLY PROMULGATED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Colangelo, affirming Supreme Court, determined the regulation requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services, which includes an exemption for “religious employers,” was properly promulgated and was constitutional. The Court of Appeals decision upholding a similar regulation for prescription contraceptives,  Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v Serio (7 NY3d 510 [2006] …), was deemed the controlling precedent:

At issue in Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany was the validity of a provision of the Women’s Health and Wellness Act (…[hereinafter WHWA]) that requires health insurance policies that provide coverage for prescription drugs to include coverage for prescription contraceptives … . The WHWA also provided an exemption from coverage for “religious employers” (Insurance Law § 3221 [l] [16] [E]), which exemption contains the identical criteria as the exemption applicable here … . … As the constitutional arguments raised by plaintiffs here are the same as those raised and rejected in Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany, Supreme Court properly concluded that they must meet the same fate by operation of the doctrine of stare decisis. “Stare decisis is the doctrine which holds that common-law decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future and that a rule of law once decided by a court will generally be followed in subsequent cases presenting the same legal problem” … .

We agree with Supreme Court that an analysis of the Boreali factors [Boreali v Axelrod, 71 NY2d 1] weighs in favor of rejecting plaintiffs’ challenge that the Superintendent exceeded regulatory authority in promulgating the regulation at issue here. Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v Vullo, 2020 NY Slip Op 03707, Third Dept 7-2-20

 

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY PAID A BROKER FOR THE INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED BY DEFENDANT INSURER BUT THE INSURER CANCELLED THE POLICY FOR NONPAYMENT; THE INSURER ALLEGED THE BROKER WAS NOT IN THE CHAIN OF BROKERS LEADING FROM PLAINTIFFS TO THE INSURER; QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant-insurer’s (Interstate’s) motion for summary judgment in this “wrongful policy cancellation” suit should not have been granted. Plaintiffs alleged they paid a broker for the policy issued by Interstate . The premiums never reached Interstate. Interstate alleged the broker was not in the chain of brokers leading from plaintiffs to Interstate. The policy was cancelled for nonpayment:

Plaintiffs allege that they paid a broker the initial premium for the excess liability coverage issued by defendants, and that the broker also procured a financing agreement for them for the balance of the premiums. The party financing the premiums paid the broker on plaintiffs’ behalf and plaintiffs complied with the financing agreement. Plaintiffs’ president testified that plaintiffs only dealt with that broker, who delivered the policies to them. However, the premiums never reached defendants, who canceled the policies. Thereafter, three persons were killed during the term of the policies in an accident on plaintiffs’ premises when the decedents inhaled hydrogen sulfide fumes (the accident). Defendants disclaimed coverage.

Where an insured makes timely payment to a broker in the chain of brokers and the insurer delivers the policy to the broker pursuant to the broker’s request, Insurance Law § 2121 precludes the insurer from canceling the policy based on nonpayment of premiums where the broker did not remit the payment to the insurer … .

Here, the record is replete with triable issues of fact as to whether the broker with whom plaintiffs state they dealt was in the chain of brokers leading from plaintiffs to Interstate, such that the payment of the premiums to the broker was sufficient to bind Interstate. Plaintiffs referred to the testimony of their president that the broker was the only broker used by them, and that the broker’s employee delivered the policies to them. Moreover, the premium checks were made payable to the broker, who prepared a loss summary, and no evidence was presented demonstrating that another broker delivered the policies to plaintiffs. However, the absence of significant paperwork naming the broker cited by plaintiffs as a broker in the transaction, the testimony of the wholesale brokers that they did not deal with the broker cited by plaintiffs and would not do so, and the Notice of Excess Line Placement naming a different entity as plaintiffs’ broker, raise questions that preclude summary judgment in favor of either plaintiffs or Interstate. Royal Waste Servs., Inc. v Interstate Fire & Cas. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 03616, First Dept 6-25-20

 

, ,

PETITION TO STAY ARBITRATION IN THIS UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROCEEDING WAS SERVED AFTER THE 20-DAY STATUTORY PERIOD FOR SERVICE AND WAS NOT SERVED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE (CPLR 7503(c)); THEREFORE THE APPLICATION TO STAY ARBITRATION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer’s (State Farm’s) notice and petition to stay arbitration was not served within the required 20 days and was not properly served. The petition therefore should have been dismissed:

… [T]he insured, Joyce Reid, sent State Farm Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm) a demand for supplemental underinsured motorist (hereinafter SUM) arbitration, which was received by State Farm on February 14, 2019. On March 22, 2019, State Farm filed a notice of petition and petition seeking to temporarily stay the arbitration pending the completion of pre-arbitration discovery. That notice and petition were served upon counsel for Reid by first-class mail on March 22, 2019. …

CPLR 7503(c) requires that an application to stay arbitration be made within 20 days after service of a demand to arbitrate. “This limitation is strictly enforced and a court has no jurisdiction to entertain an untimely application” … . CPLR 7503(c) also directs that notice of an application to stay arbitration “shall be served in the same manner as a summons or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.”

… State Farm did not file its notice of petition and petition until March 22, 2019, which was beyond the 20-day statute of limitations. Consequently, the proceeding is time-barred … .

Moreover, State Farm’s notice of petition and petition to stay arbitration were served by regular first-class mail, rather than by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. Since there was a lack of compliance with CPLR 7503(c), the present proceeding was jurisdictionally defective … . Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v Reid, 2020 NY Slip Op 03517, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

, , ,

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICABLE INSURANCE LAW PROVISIONS, AND UNDER THE PRINCIPLES OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, NOT DEFENDANT EMPLOYER, WAS ENTITLED TO THE DEMUTUALIZATION PROCEEDS WHEN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER CONVERTED FROM A MUTUAL TO A STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT EMPLOYER PAID THE POLICY PREMIUMS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Mulvey, dealt with insurance law, employment law, contract law, unjust enrichment and stare decisis in this dispute between defendant employer and plaintiff employee over the “demutualization” proceeds of an insurance policy. Plaintiff was employed as a certified nurse midwife by defendant. As part of the employment agreement defendant was required to maintain and pay the premiums for a malpractice insurance policy. When the insurance company (MLMIC) converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company (demutualization) the policyholder was entitled to nearly $75,000. Plaintiff-employee claimed the money was hers and brought an action for a declaratory judgment. Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff but, because there was no on-point appellate decision by the Court of Appeals or the Third Department, Supreme Court was required to follow a First Department decision and, based on that decision, found in favor of defendant-employer. The Third Department noted that it, unlike Supreme Court, was not bound by stare decisis and reversed:

… [P]er the relevant statute [(Insurance Law § 7307 [e] [3])] and the conversion plan’s definitions, plaintiff was entitled to the cash consideration … . * * *

… [T]he parties’ employment agreement provided that plaintiff would perform professional services for defendant. In exchange, defendant would pay her a stated salary and provide specified benefits including, as relevant here, obtaining and paying the premiums for professional liability insurance covering plaintiff. The record indicates that defendant purchased, controlled and maintained such a policy from MLMIC in plaintiff’s favor. Defendant was the policy administrator, selected the coverage and terms, and was responsible for all financial aspects of the policy. Notably, defendant paid annual premiums of approximately $25,710; plaintiff paid nothing toward the premiums and those amounts were not counted as income to plaintiff. Defendant received from MLMIC dividends, premium reductions and the return of premiums when the policy was canceled upon plaintiff leaving defendant’s employ, all without any objection by plaintiff. * * *

The reality is that neither party here bargained for the demutualization proceeds. Moreover, neither party actually paid for them, because membership interests in a mutual insurance company are not paid for by policy premiums; such rights are “acquired . . . at no cost, but rather as an incident of the structure of mutual insurance policies,” through operation of law and the company’s charter and bylaws … . * * *

Neither party changed its position based on demutualization and plaintiff’s conduct was neither tortious nor fraudulent. … [W]e conclude that defendant failed to meet its burden to establish its affirmative defense and counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment. Schoch v Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 03444, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, , ,

SUPREME COURT WAS BOUND TO FOLLOW A FIRST DEPARTMENT DECISION BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ON-POINT DECISIONS FROM THE THIRD DEPARTMENT OR THE COURT OF APPEALS; HOWEVER THE THIRD DEPARTMENT IS NOT SO BOUND; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, dealt with the issue of stare decisis in this dispute between defendant employer and plaintiff employee over the “demutualization” proceeds of an insurance policy. Plaintiff was employed as a certified nurse midwife by defendant. As part of the employment agreement defendant was required to maintain and pay the premiums for a malpractice insurance policy. When the insurance company converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company (demutualization) the policyholder was entitled to nearly $50,000. Plaintiff-employee claimed the money was hers and brought an action for a declaratory judgment. Supreme Court agreed with plaintiff but, because there was no on-point appellate decision by the Court of Appeals or the Third Department, Supreme Court was required to follow a First Department decision and, based on that decision, found in favor of defendant-employer. The Third Department noted that it, unlike Supreme Court, was not bound by stare decisis and reversed:

Initially, Supreme Court was “bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to apply precedent established in another Department,” as no relevant precedent was available from this Court or the Court of Appeals … . However, this Court is not so bound … . We agree with Supreme Court’s inclinations — although that court was constrained by stare decisis not to follow them — and disagree with the First Department’s holding in Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v Title (171 AD3d at 465 …). Therefore, for the reasons stated in our decision in Schoch v Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C. (___ AD3d ___ [decided herewith]), we reverse. Shoback v Broome Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 03447, Third Dept 6-18-20

 

, , ,

THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY GAVE THE INSURER THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE A TITLE CLAIM BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE A TITLE CLAIM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANT BREACHED THE POLICY BY NOT PROSECUTING THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s action against a title insurance company should have been dismissed based upon the language of the policy. Plaintiff had requested that defendant take action against a party plaintiff believed was using plaintiff’s land. Defendant refused. The title insurance policy gave defendant the right but not the obligation to bring such an action:

A dismissal of a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) is warranted if “the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” … . Plaintiffs alleged that defendant breached section 5 (b) of the policy, which provides, in relevant part, that defendant “shall have the right . . . to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act that in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the Title, as insured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Insured.” Defendant’s “right” to prosecute an action is not equivalent to an “obligation” … . Inasmuch as the policy submitted by defendant on the motion did not require defendant to prosecute the action against the property owner, defendant is entitled to dismissal of the complaint insofar as it sought attorneys’ fees and costs that plaintiffs had already incurred for the prosecution of that action … . We further conclude that defendant is entitled to a declaration that it is not obligated to pay for the attorneys’ fees and costs necessary to prosecute that action in the future … . Irma Straus Realty Corp. v Old Republic Natl. Tit. Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 03307, Fourth Dept 6-12-20

 

, , ,

THE BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST WHICH WAS SET UP TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS; THE CREDIT TRUST SUED THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE INSURED ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, in a matter of first impression, determined that the bankruptcy exception to the insured vs. insured exclusion of a Directors and Officers (D & O) liability insurance policy applied to a Creditor Trust. The Creditor Trust was formed pursuant to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan for the insured, RCS Capital Corporation (RCAP), to pursue the bankruptcy estate’s legal claims on behalf of unsecured creditors of the insured:

… [T]he Creditor Trust sued RCAP’s directors and officers alleging they had breached their fiduciary duties to the company. The directors and officers sought coverage under RCAP’s D & O liability policy with Westchester (the insurer). Westchester commenced this action in response, seeking a declaratory judgment that it has no coverage obligations.

This appeal raises an issue of apparent first impression of whether a D & O liability policy’s bankruptcy exception, which allows claims asserted by the “bankruptcy trustee” or “comparable authority,” applies to claims raised by a Creditor Trust, as a post-confirmation litigation trust, to restore D & O coverage removed by the insured vs. insured exclusion. For the reasons that follow, we find that the bankruptcy exception, to the insured vs. insured exclusion, applies to restore coverage. Specifically, we interpret the broad language “comparable authority” to encompass a Creditor Trust that functions as a post-confirmation litigation trust, given that such a Creditor Trust is an authority comparable to a “bankruptcy trustee” or other bankruptcy-related or “comparable authority” listed in the bankruptcy exception. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v Schorsch, 2020 NY Slip Op 02895, First Dept 5-14-20

 

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