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

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 69 (Investors Insurance Co. of America v. Nick's Grove, Inc.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 69, 603 N.Y.S.2d 444, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/investors-insurance-co-of-america-v-nicks-grove-inc-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack