Carreon v. Hospitality Linen Services

902 A.2d 278, 386 N.J. Super. 504, 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 207
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedJuly 18, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 902 A.2d 278 (Carreon v. Hospitality Linen Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carreon v. Hospitality Linen Services, 902 A.2d 278, 386 N.J. Super. 504, 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 207 (N.J. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FUENTES, JAD.

By leave granted, the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Group (“PMA”) appeals from the order of the Workers’ Compensation Court, denying its motion to dismiss a claim asserted by plaintiff Manuela Carreon, seeking coverage under a workers’ compensation insurance policy issued by PMA. The court of compensation found that the policy issued by PMA to plaintiffs employer, Hospitality Linen Services of New Jersey, LLC (“Hospitality”), was in effect on February 9, 2002, the date of the accident, because PMA had failed to send Hospitality a notice of cancellation. The court of compensation reached this conclusion despite the fact that the request to cancel the policy was made by First Insurance Funding Corp., (“First”), acting as Hospitality’s attorney-in-fact.

This appeal requires us to determine the interplay between the procedures for canceling a workers’ compensation insurance policy, N.J.S.A. 17:16D-13, provided in the Insurance Premium Finance Company Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16D-1 to -16, and the notice of cancellation requirements in the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-81. This is the question before us: Is a carrier required under N.J.S.A. 34:15-81 a to notify its insured of the cancellation of the policy, when such cancellation was triggered by the request of the insured’s premium finance company, acting as the insured’s attorney-in-fact, and following the procedures out[506]*506lined in N.J.S.A. 17:16D-13? We now answer this question in the negative.

We hold that when a carrier receives a request to cancel a workers’ compensation policy from the insured’s premium finance company, acting as the insured’s attorney-in-fact pursuant to a premium finance agreement, the carrier is not required to send the insured the notice of cancellation provided in N.J.S.A. 34:15— 81a. Under these circumstances, the premium finance company has legally “stepped into the shoes” of the insured, thereby transforming the request to cancel as if originating from the insured himself. N.J.S.A. 17:16D-13(c).

We will address and analyze this issue in the following factual context.

I

On or about April 24, 2001, Hospitality entered into a premium financing agreement with First to finance the $28,057 premium for the workers’ compensation policy it obtained from PMA. Commencing May 11, 2001, Hospitality was required to make monthly installment payments of $3,240. Under the financing agreement Hospitality gave First a power of attorney to cancel the policy in the event it failed to make the monthly payments or was otherwise in default. The power of attorney provision in the contract reads:

EIGHT TO CANCEL If the Insured does not make a payment when it is due, or if Insured is otherwise in default under this agreement, FIRST may cancel the policies and act in Insured’s place with regard to the policies, including endorsing any check or draft issued in the Insured’s name for funds assigned to FIRST as security herein. This right given by Insured to FIRST constitutes a “Power of Attorney”. Before FIRST cancels the policies, FIRST will provide notice to the Insured, as required by law. Insured agrees that this right to cancel which Insured has granted to FIRST cannot be revoked, and that FIRST’S right to cancel will terminate only after all of Insured’s indebtedness under this agreement is paid in full.

Hospitality made its monthly payments for May, June, July, August, and September of 2001. It did not make the October payment. First issued a notice of cancellation to Hospitality for non-payment on October 21, 2001. The notice indicated that [507]*507unless payment was received, the policy would be cancelled effective October 31, 2001. On October 25, 2001, Hospitality’s insurance broker also sent a notice advising it that the policy was scheduled for cancellation on October 31,2001.

On November 2, 2001, First sent a “notice of cancellation of insurance coverage” to PMA, Hospitality, and to Hospitality’s insurance broker. The notice to PMA was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested. PMA received it on November 9, 2001. The document prominently displayed “Notice of Cancellation of Insurance Coverage” in bold large type. It provided, in pertinent part:

The insurance policy identified in this notice (the “Policy”) is hereby cancelled in accordance with the appropriate premium finance statute and/or the insured’s premium finance agreement (the “Agreement”.) The Agreement, which was signed by or on behalf of the Insured, granted to First Insurance Funding Corp. (“FIRST”) a power of attorney to issue this notice and assigned to FIRST the gross unearned premium on the Policy.

In a letter dated November 20, 2001, PMA wrote to Hospitality confirming receipt of First’s request to cancel the policy. This letter also clearly stated that, pursuant to First’s request, PMA had cancelled the policy effective November 2, 2001. The PMA letter also advised Hospitality that “[a]ny return [of] premiums resulting from the cancellation will be forwarded to the above named [First] finance company. If you have not already done so, arrangements should be made immediately to place your insurance elsewhere.,’ (Emphasis added.)

Hospitality did not heed PMA’s advice, and continued to operate its business without procuring workers’ compensation coverage from another company. On February 9, 2002, more than two months after Hospitality had received PMA’s cancellation of insurance notice, plaintiff was seriously injured in a work-related accident. In the course of using Hospitality’s commercial laundry equipment, plaintiff injured the lower part of her right arm, resulting in the amputation of her arm from below the elbow.

[508]*508II

Against these facts, the court of compensation ruled that the PMA policy remained in effect on the day of plaintiffs accident, because PMA had not complied with the notice requirement in N.J.S.A. 34:15-81. This statute is part of the Workers’ Compensation Act. It specifically delineates the procedures to be followed by a party wishing to cancel a workers’ compensation policy.

Any contract of insurance issued by a stock company or mutual association against liability arising under this chapter may be canceled by either the employer or the insurance carrier within the time limited by such contract for its expiration.
No such policy shall be deemed to be canceled until:
a. At least ten days’ notice in writing of the election to terminate such contract is given by registered, mail by the party seeking cancellation thereof to the other party thereto; and
b. Until like notice shall be filed in the office of the commissioner of banking and insurance, together with a certified statement that the notice provided for by paragraph “a” of this section has been given; and
c. Until ten days have elapsed after the filing required by paragraph “b” of this section has been made.
The provisions “b” and “c” of this section shall not apply where the employer has replaced the contract to be canceled by other insurance, and notice of such replacement has been filed with the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance.

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

Related

Amb Property, Lp v. Penn America
14 A.3d 65 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2011)
Sroczynski v. Milek
933 A.2d 931 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
902 A.2d 278, 386 N.J. Super. 504, 2006 N.J. Super. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carreon-v-hospitality-linen-services-njsuperctappdiv-2006.