Bullard-Lindsay Contracting Co. v. Universal Bonding Insurance
This text of 303 A.D.2d 317 (Bullard-Lindsay Contracting Co. v. Universal Bonding 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.
Opinion
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered on or about January 7, 2002, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was not entitled to a refund of the portion of its bond premiums that corresponded to the contract value of the work remaining under its prematurely terminated construction contract. The risk attached at the inception of the coverage and the bond documents did not provide for a refund in the event of such termination. Under the circumstances, the premiums are deemed fully earned (see Sil-Turn Co. v London Guar. & Acc. Co., 153 Misc 805 [1934], affd 242 App Div 829 [1934]; Appeal of Bolden, 848 F2d 201, 209 [1988]; Fleetwood Acres v Federal Hous. Admin., 171 F2d 440, 442 [1948]). We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
303 A.D.2d 317, 755 N.Y.S.2d 844, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullard-lindsay-contracting-co-v-universal-bonding-insurance-nyappdiv-2003.