Suffolk Cable of Shelter Island, Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Suffolk Cable of Shelter Island, Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co.

33 A.D.2d 575, 305 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3099

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 575 (Suffolk Cable of Shelter Island, Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co.) 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

Suffolk Cable of Shelter Island, Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 33 A.D.2d 575, 305 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action upon an insurance binder to recover a loss sustained during an electrical storm, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated December 11, 1968, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, without costs. In spite of the limitations inherent in the 60-day binder provision of subdivision 3 of section 168 of the1 Insurance Law, we are of the opinion that respondent, should be afforded an opportunity, on trial of this action, to demonstrate that its failure to pay any premium was due to a misunderstanding on the part of all concerned (including the agent which issued the binder) as to whether there was coverage pending the promulgation of a rate schedule. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action upon an insurance binder to recover a loss sustained during an electrical storm, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated December 11, 1968, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, without costs. In spite of the limitations inherent in the 60-day binder provision of subdivision 3 of section 168 of the1 Insurance Law, we are of the opinion that respondent, should be afforded an opportunity, on trial of this action, to demonstrate that its failure to pay any premium was due to a misunderstanding on the part of all concerned (including the agent which issued the binder) as to whether there was coverage pending the promulgation of a rate schedule. Brennan, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 575, 305 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suffolk-cable-of-shelter-island-inc-v-royal-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-1969.