Corcoran v. American Transit Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Corcoran v. American Transit Insurance

170 A.D.2d 268

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

DecidedFebruary 14, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 268 (Corcoran v. American Transit 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

Corcoran v. American Transit Insurance, 170 A.D.2d 268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered January 4, 1990, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, to the extent appealed from, without costs.

At issue is the interpretation of Insurance Law § 7604 (b), which calls for an insurer to pay into the Public Motor Vehicle Liability Security Fund an amount equal to 3% of the net direct written premiums (defined as gross premiums less return premiums and dividends [§ 7602 (e)]) on insurance policies covering vehicles for hire issued to meet the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370. Defendant argued that its payments into this fund should be based on premiums only up to the amount of the minimum liability coverage requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, whereas plaintiff maintained that Insurance Law § 7604 called for payments to be based on the entire net premiums, even if in excess of the minimum coverage requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law §370.

Even conceding ambiguity in the statute, the Superintendent has the authority to interpret these statutory provisions, so long as the interpretation is neither irrational nor unreasonable (Matter of Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co. [Arcade Cleaning Contrs.—Superintendent of Ins.], 60 NY2d 1, 8). We find his interpretation to be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered January 4, 1990, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, to the extent appealed from, without costs.

At issue is the interpretation of Insurance Law § 7604 (b), which calls for an insurer to pay into the Public Motor Vehicle Liability Security Fund an amount equal to 3% of the net direct written premiums (defined as gross premiums less return premiums and dividends [§ 7602 (e)]) on insurance policies covering vehicles for hire issued to meet the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 370. Defendant argued that its payments into this fund should be based on premiums only up to the amount of the minimum liability coverage requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, whereas plaintiff maintained that Insurance Law § 7604 called for payments to be based on the entire net premiums, even if in excess of the minimum coverage requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law §370.

Even conceding ambiguity in the statute, the Superintendent has the authority to interpret these statutory provisions, so long as the interpretation is neither irrational nor unreasonable (Matter of Consolidated Mut. Ins. Co. [Arcade Cleaning Contrs.—Superintendent of Ins.], 60 NY2d 1, 8). We find his interpretation to be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corcoran-v-american-transit-insurance-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack