Investors Insurance Co. of America v. Nick's Grove, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Investors Insurance Co. of America v. Nick's Grove, Inc.

198 A.D.2d 69, 603 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10464

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 1993·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered June 11, 1992, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that Insurance Law § 3426 prohibits the increase in premiums plaintiff insurer seeks from defendant insured. The exceptions to the general bar against such increases set forth in subdivisions (d) (1) and (c) (1) (D) and (E) do not apply since the nature of defendant’s business was apparent to plaintiff when the policy went into effect and did not change thereafter. And, assuming, arguendo, defendant misstated the nature of the business in applying for the policy, plaintiff’s only remedy under subdivision (c) (1) (C) would have been to cancel the policy rather than to reclassify the business and impose a retroactive premium increase. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered June 11, 1992, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that Insurance Law § 3426 prohibits the increase in premiums plaintiff insurer seeks from defendant insured. The exceptions to the general bar against such increases set forth in subdivisions (d) (1) and (c) (1) (D) and (E) do not apply since the nature of defendant’s business was apparent to plaintiff when the policy went into effect and did not change thereafter. And, assuming, arguendo, defendant misstated the nature of the business in applying for the policy, plaintiff’s only remedy under subdivision (c) (1) (C) would have been to cancel the policy rather than to reclassify the business and impose a retroactive premium increase. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.

Investors Insurance Co. of America v. Nick's Grove, Inc., 198 A.D.2d 69, 603 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

198 A.D.2d 69 (Investors Insurance Co. of America v. Nick's Grove, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related