Medical Malpractice Insurance v. Cuomo

541 N.E.2d 393, 74 N.Y.2d 651, 543 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 463
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 2, 1989
StatusPublished
Cited by58 cases

This text of 541 N.E.2d 393 (Medical Malpractice Insurance v. Cuomo) 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
Medical Malpractice Insurance v. Cuomo, 541 N.E.2d 393, 74 N.Y.2d 651, 543 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 463 (N.Y. 1989).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with *653 costs, the preliminary injunction vacated, defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted, and sections 11 and 40 of chapter 266 of the Laws of 1986 declared constitutional. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

We have recently determined that the Legislature may require the Medical Malpractice Insurance Association (MMIA) to operate at a loss on a temporary or even continual basis in order to promote affordable medical malpractice coverage (Matter of Medical Malpractice Ins. Assn. v Superintendent of Ins., 72 NY2d 753, 766). In so holding, we rejected the argument that section 40 of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1986 (Reform Act) is confiscatory as to MMIA because it authorizes the Superintendent of Insurance to consider future surcharges on insurance premiums in fixing present insurance rates and thus contemplates that MMIA may be required to operate at a deficit. Likewise here, there is no constitutional infirmity in section 11 of the Reform Act insofar as it directs MMIA to refund stabilization reserve fund charges collected on excess policies issued during the 1985-1986 policy year. As a creature of statute, MMIA had no vested property interest in those charges and it was within the Legislature’s prerogative to direct a refund in an effort to reduce over-all health care costs (see, Matter of Medical Malpractice Ins. Assn. v Superintendent of Ins., 72 NY2d, at 766, supra). Nor can MMIA state any cognizable claim for the impairment of contract rights since the stabilization reserve fund charge on excess insurance policies was imposed by statute and not as the result of any bargaining between MMIA and its insureds.

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

Order reversed, etc.

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

Related

People v. Albert
2019 NY Slip Op 3227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
2138747 Ontario, Inc. v. Samsung C&T Corp.
31 N.Y.3d 372 (New York Court of Appeals, 2018)
Pa. Prof'l Liab. Joint Underwriting Ass'n v. Wolf
324 F. Supp. 3d 519 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 2018)
24 Fifth Owners, Inc. v. Sirius America Insurance
124 A.D.3d 551 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
PENN MILLERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. C.W. COLD STORAGE, INC.
103 A.D.3d 1132 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
SAGE, MERLIN G., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
People v. Sage
98 A.D.3d 1254 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Tower Insurance v. Classon Heights, LLC
82 A.D.3d 632 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. McPherson
70 A.D.3d 1353 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Magen v. Hartford Fire Insurance
64 A.D.3d 266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Watkins
59 A.D.3d 1128 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Montanez
57 A.D.3d 1366 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Washington
50 A.D.3d 1616 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Worth Construction Co. v. Admiral Insurance
40 A.D.3d 423 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Genesee Valley Improvement Corp.
41 A.D.3d 44 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Doe Fund, Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co.
34 A.D.3d 399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Pendill v. Furry Paws, Inc.
29 A.D.3d 453 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Brownstone Partners/AF&F, LLC v. A. Aleem Constr., Inc.
18 A.D.3d 204 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Weeks
15 A.D.3d 845 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc.
13 A.D.3d 227 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
541 N.E.2d 393, 74 N.Y.2d 651, 543 N.Y.S.2d 364, 1989 N.Y. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medical-malpractice-insurance-v-cuomo-ny-1989.