Badillo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Badillo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

114 A.D.2d 394, 494 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53073

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 15, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 394 (Badillo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Badillo v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 114 A.D.2d 394, 494 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a declaration that defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is required to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated March 14, 1984, which declared that the automobile liability insurance policy issued to plaintiff Daisy Badillo by defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company had been properly canceled prior to the date of the accident at issue and was not in effect at that time.

Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and [395]*395it is declared that defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is required to defend and indemnify plaintiffs.

Pursuant to Banking Law § 576, a premium finance agency may cancel an insurance contract that it is financing when the premium finance agreement contains a power of attorney or other authority enabling the agency to cancel the contract. Although the premium finance agreement here contained a power of attorney authorizing defendant Kings Premium Service Corp. to cancel the insurance contract, plaintiff Daisy Badillo testified that she did not remember signing a paper concerning financing and that the signature on the finance agreement was not her signature. Additionally, a comparison of Daisy Badillo’s signature on her insurance application (which she admits signing) with her alleged signature on the finance agreement reveals that the two signatures are very different. Plaintiffs clearly made a prima facie showing that the signature on the finance agreement did not belong to Daisy Badillo. State Farm did nothing to refute that showing. Accordingly, the judgment should have been in plaintiffs’ favor. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alia, for a declaration that defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is required to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated March 14, 1984, which declared that the automobile liability insurance policy issued to plaintiff Daisy Badillo by defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company had been properly canceled prior to the date of the accident at issue and was not in effect at that time.

Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and [395]*395it is declared that defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is required to defend and indemnify plaintiffs.

Pursuant to Banking Law § 576, a premium finance agency may cancel an insurance contract that it is financing when the premium finance agreement contains a power of attorney or other authority enabling the agency to cancel the contract. Although the premium finance agreement here contained a power of attorney authorizing defendant Kings Premium Service Corp. to cancel the insurance contract, plaintiff Daisy Badillo testified that she did not remember signing a paper concerning financing and that the signature on the finance agreement was not her signature. Additionally, a comparison of Daisy Badillo’s signature on her insurance application (which she admits signing) with her alleged signature on the finance agreement reveals that the two signatures are very different. Plaintiffs clearly made a prima facie showing that the signature on the finance agreement did not belong to Daisy Badillo. State Farm did nothing to refute that showing. Accordingly, the judgment should have been in plaintiffs’ favor. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 394, 494 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/badillo-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack