MATTER OF CASE v. State Ins. Fund

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF CASE v. State Ins. Fund

530 N.E.2d 1288, 72 N.Y.2d 992, 534 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 2691

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 530 N.E.2d 1288 (MATTER OF CASE v. State Ins. Fund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MATTER OF CASE v. State Ins. Fund, 530 N.E.2d 1288, 72 N.Y.2d 992, 534 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 2691 (N.Y. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The requirements for the cancellation of workers’ compensation insurance coverage must be strictly observed (Matter of Conklin v Byram House Rest., 32 AD2d 582, 583, affd 30 NY2d 657; Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 [5]). On the other hand, failure to establish strict compliance in the cancellation of a policy does not result in the automatic renewal of the policy in perpetuity, when the record discloses a course of conduct and intent by both the insured and the carrier not to renew subsequent to the policy expiration (see, Matter of Leide v Jacy Painting Co., 282 App Div 906, 907, lv denied 306 NY 984; Matter of Pucci v Novel Lithographers, 29 AD2d 590, 591). The latter is the case here. Thus, the Appellate Division is correct that the carrier is not liable (see, Matter of Barnes v Baker, 30 AD2d 580 [Gabrielli, J.]).

The president of Mattituck testified that he had not paid the premium on the State Insurance Fund policy since its expiration in September 1972, that he received and had actual notice of the policy cancellation years before the decedent’s death and that no effort to renew the policy or acquire a different policy was ever made. The State Insurance Fund witness presented a copy of the notice of cancellation filed with the Workers’ Compensation Board, but due to the destruction of Mattituck’s file in the ordinary course of business *994 was unable to prove service of the notice on Mattituck. In light of the uncontroverted evidence that the policy was never renewed, the Fund’s failure to prove strict compliance with the cancellation requirements is without effect.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The requirements for the cancellation of workers’ compensation insurance coverage must be strictly observed (Matter of Conklin v Byram House Rest., 32 AD2d 582, 583, affd 30 NY2d 657; Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 [5]). On the other hand, failure to establish strict compliance in the cancellation of a policy does not result in the automatic renewal of the policy in perpetuity, when the record discloses a course of conduct and intent by both the insured and the carrier not to renew subsequent to the policy expiration (see, Matter of Leide v Jacy Painting Co., 282 App Div 906, 907, lv denied 306 NY 984; Matter of Pucci v Novel Lithographers, 29 AD2d 590, 591). The latter is the case here. Thus, the Appellate Division is correct that the carrier is not liable (see, Matter of Barnes v Baker, 30 AD2d 580 [Gabrielli, J.]).

The president of Mattituck testified that he had not paid the premium on the State Insurance Fund policy since its expiration in September 1972, that he received and had actual notice of the policy cancellation years before the decedent’s death and that no effort to renew the policy or acquire a different policy was ever made. The State Insurance Fund witness presented a copy of the notice of cancellation filed with the Workers’ Compensation Board, but due to the destruction of Mattituck’s file in the ordinary course of business *994 was unable to prove service of the notice on Mattituck. In light of the uncontroverted evidence that the policy was never renewed, the Fund’s failure to prove strict compliance with the cancellation requirements is without effect.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 N.E.2d 1288, 72 N.Y.2d 992, 534 N.Y.S.2d 368, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 2691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-case-v-state-ins-fund-ny-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack