Salvant v. Landmark Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salvant v. Landmark Insurance

178 A.D.2d 471, 576 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16243

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 471 (Salvant v. Landmark Insurance) 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

Salvant v. Landmark Insurance, 178 A.D.2d 471, 576 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16243 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to coverage under the policy of insurance issued by the appellant, Puritan Insurance Company, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), entered February 13, 1990, which, inter alia, declared that the appellant had not validly canceled the insurance policy covering the subject premises prior to the date of the accident in which the plaintiff was injured.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of judgment declaring that the appellant validly canceled the insurance policy covering the subject premises prior to the date of the accident in which the plaintiff was injured.

We find that the appellant’s notice of cancellation of the insured’s insurance policy was valid. In accordance with the policy’s clear and unambiguous terms, the appellant sent the notice of cancellation to the insured at the mailing address shown in the policy. That the insured corporation did not actually receive the notice was due to the insured’s failure to notify the appellant of its change of address.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to coverage under the policy of insurance issued by the appellant, Puritan Insurance Company, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), entered February 13, 1990, which, inter alia, declared that the appellant had not validly canceled the insurance policy covering the subject premises prior to the date of the accident in which the plaintiff was injured.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of judgment declaring that the appellant validly canceled the insurance policy covering the subject premises prior to the date of the accident in which the plaintiff was injured.

We find that the appellant’s notice of cancellation of the insured’s insurance policy was valid. In accordance with the policy’s clear and unambiguous terms, the appellant sent the notice of cancellation to the insured at the mailing address shown in the policy. That the insured corporation did not actually receive the notice was due to the insured’s failure to notify the appellant of its change of address.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the appellant’s remaining contentions. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 471, 576 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvant-v-landmark-insurance-nyappdiv-1991.