Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Gonzalez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Gonzalez

204 A.D.2d 642, 612 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5481

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

DecidedMay 23, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 204 A.D.2d 642 (Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Gonzalez) 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

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Gonzalez, 204 A.D.2d 642, 612 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding for a permanent stay of arbitration pursuant to CPLR article 75, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated July 28, 1992, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant, who was involved in an accident while driving a vehicle owned by the insured, contends that the insured’s assigned risk livery policy was in effect at the time of the accident. He asserts that the insurance carrier’s purported cancellation was invalid without notification to the insured of the right to appeal. We disagree and affirm.

New York Automobile Insurance Plan (hereinafter the Plan) § 18 (2) (1) permits cancellation by the insurance carrier on the ground that the insured "is not or ceases to be eligible”. The requirements for eligibility are set forth in section 9 of the Plan, which states, in essence, that an applicant is not entitled to motor vehicle insurance if the applicant lacks a valid driver’s license, or fails to pay insurance premiums. The insured in the present case did not cease to be "eligible” within the meaning of section 9. Rather, the insured’s policy was canceled, not because of any problem with its eligibility for coverage, but because the Plan was being restructured and [643]*643the insured was obligated to obtain a new policy, either on the open market or by submission of a new application to the Plan. There was, therefore, no cancellation pursuant to section 18, and the insurance carrier was not required to provide notice pursuant to section 19 of the right to appeal. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding for a permanent stay of arbitration pursuant to CPLR article 75, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated July 28, 1992, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant, who was involved in an accident while driving a vehicle owned by the insured, contends that the insured’s assigned risk livery policy was in effect at the time of the accident. He asserts that the insurance carrier’s purported cancellation was invalid without notification to the insured of the right to appeal. We disagree and affirm.

New York Automobile Insurance Plan (hereinafter the Plan) § 18 (2) (1) permits cancellation by the insurance carrier on the ground that the insured "is not or ceases to be eligible”. The requirements for eligibility are set forth in section 9 of the Plan, which states, in essence, that an applicant is not entitled to motor vehicle insurance if the applicant lacks a valid driver’s license, or fails to pay insurance premiums. The insured in the present case did not cease to be "eligible” within the meaning of section 9. Rather, the insured’s policy was canceled, not because of any problem with its eligibility for coverage, but because the Plan was being restructured and [643]*643the insured was obligated to obtain a new policy, either on the open market or by submission of a new application to the Plan. There was, therefore, no cancellation pursuant to section 18, and the insurance carrier was not required to provide notice pursuant to section 19 of the right to appeal. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 642, 612 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-mutual-insurance-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-1994.