Han-Ki Lee v. American Transit Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Han-Ki Lee v. American Transit Insurance

304 A.D.2d 713, 757 N.Y.S.2d 796

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

DecidedApril 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 713 (Han-Ki Lee 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

Han-Ki Lee v. American Transit Insurance, 304 A.D.2d 713, 757 N.Y.S.2d 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid no-fault benefits, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated September [714]*71415, 2002, which, among other things, denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“An insurance carrier may not, after repudiating liability, create grounds for its refusal to pay by demanding compliance with proof of loss provisions of the policy” (State Farm Ins. Co. v Domotor, 266 AD2d 219, 220 [1999]; see Igbara Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 63 NY2d 201 [1984]; Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 NY2d 835 [1981]; Sherri v National Sur. Co., 243 NY 266 [1926]; see also King v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 218 AD2d 863, 865 [1995]; Beckley v Otsego County Farmers Coop. Fire Ins. Co., 3 AD2d 190 [1957]).

In the present case, there are issues of fact as to whether the defendant insurance company repudiated liability under its policy, within the meaning of the rule stated above, by issuing a series of claim denial forms prior to any alleged failure by the plaintiff to submit to an examination under oath. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety, based on the plaintiffs failure to submit to an examination under oath as requested on June 12, 1998 (see e.g. Ayyub v Smith, 291 AD2d 864 [2002]; Rajchandra Corp. v Title Guar. Co., 163 AD2d 765 [1990]; Treptow v Exchange Mut. Ins. Co., 106 AD2d 767 [1984]; Ocean-Clear v Continental Cas. Co., 94 AD2d 717 [1983]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover unpaid no-fault benefits, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schmidt, J.), dated September [714]*71415, 2002, which, among other things, denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“An insurance carrier may not, after repudiating liability, create grounds for its refusal to pay by demanding compliance with proof of loss provisions of the policy” (State Farm Ins. Co. v Domotor, 266 AD2d 219, 220 [1999]; see Igbara Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 63 NY2d 201 [1984]; Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 NY2d 835 [1981]; Sherri v National Sur. Co., 243 NY 266 [1926]; see also King v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 218 AD2d 863, 865 [1995]; Beckley v Otsego County Farmers Coop. Fire Ins. Co., 3 AD2d 190 [1957]).

In the present case, there are issues of fact as to whether the defendant insurance company repudiated liability under its policy, within the meaning of the rule stated above, by issuing a series of claim denial forms prior to any alleged failure by the plaintiff to submit to an examination under oath. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in its entirety, based on the plaintiffs failure to submit to an examination under oath as requested on June 12, 1998 (see e.g. Ayyub v Smith, 291 AD2d 864 [2002]; Rajchandra Corp. v Title Guar. Co., 163 AD2d 765 [1990]; Treptow v Exchange Mut. Ins. Co., 106 AD2d 767 [1984]; Ocean-Clear v Continental Cas. Co., 94 AD2d 717 [1983]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 713, 757 N.Y.S.2d 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/han-ki-lee-v-american-transit-insurance-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack