Shabashev v. New York Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shabashev v. New York Life Insurance

150 A.D.2d 673, 541 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6969

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

DecidedMay 22, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 673 (Shabashev v. New York Life 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

Shabashev v. New York Life Insurance, 150 A.D.2d 673, 541 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the plaintiff beneficiary appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated June 7, 1988, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant based on the insured’s failure to furnish true answers about his heart condition and prior hospitalizations. The defendant’s uncontroverted proof of its underwriting practices established that these omissions induced the defendant to accept the insured’s application for insurance, which it might otherwise have refused (see, Insurance Law § 3105; see also, Leamy v Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 39 NY2d 271, 274; Vander Veer v Continental Cas. Co., 34 NY2d 50, 52; Geer v Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 273 NY 261, 270, rearg denied 274 NY 569). Nor can the plaintiff rely on the defendant’s agent’s alleged knowledge of the insured’s prior hospitalizations, since there is a provision in the policy which expressly preserves the defendant’s rights to disclaim coverage based on material omissions in the application (see, Wageman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 24 AD2d 67, 70-71, affd 18 NY2d 777). Lawrence, J. R, Kunzeman, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the plaintiff beneficiary appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated June 7, 1988, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment was properly granted to the defendant based on the insured’s failure to furnish true answers about his heart condition and prior hospitalizations. The defendant’s uncontroverted proof of its underwriting practices established that these omissions induced the defendant to accept the insured’s application for insurance, which it might otherwise have refused (see, Insurance Law § 3105; see also, Leamy v Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 39 NY2d 271, 274; Vander Veer v Continental Cas. Co., 34 NY2d 50, 52; Geer v Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 273 NY 261, 270, rearg denied 274 NY 569). Nor can the plaintiff rely on the defendant’s agent’s alleged knowledge of the insured’s prior hospitalizations, since there is a provision in the policy which expressly preserves the defendant’s rights to disclaim coverage based on material omissions in the application (see, Wageman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 24 AD2d 67, 70-71, affd 18 NY2d 777). Lawrence, J. R, Kunzeman, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 673, 541 N.Y.S.2d 545, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shabashev-v-new-york-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack