From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perez v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 1969
31 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Summary

concluding that Insurance Law § 167, predecessor to § 3420(d), did not apply where coverage terminated due to the cancellation of the policy long before the happening of the incident

Summary of this case from Am. Home Assur. v. S. Difazio Sons Constr. Inc.

Opinion

March 4, 1969


Order, entered July 10, 1968, modified on the law, to the extent of granting defendant's application for summary judgment, and complaint dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant-respondent and the order is otherwise affirmed. This action was brought pursuant to section 167 Ins. of the Insurance Law against the alleged liability insurer of a motorist to recover the amount of a judgment awarded to plaintiff against the motorist in a personal injury action. The vehicular accident occurred on August 16, 1966. The defendant has established, however, that the policy issued by it was canceled on March 29, 1966 by due notice to the insured. An FS-4 (notice of termination of the insurance) was filed in the Department of Motor Vehicles on May 5, 1966. The "termination of insurance was unaffected by the defendant's failure to file the notice of the cancellation with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles within 30 days after said effective date of cancellation, as required by section 313 (formerly § 93-c) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law". ( Murry v. Allstate Ins. Co., 16 A.D.2d 958; see, also, Kyer v. General Cas. Co., 14 A.D.2d 649.) The provisions of subdivision 1 of section 576 Banking of the Banking Law are not applicable here (cf. MVAIC v. Davidson, 56 Misc.2d 246) and, inasmuch as the accident occurred more than ten days after the filing of the FS-4 with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the plaintiff does not come within the protection afforded by the provisions of section 347 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Finally, we conclude that there is no factual support for the claim of plaintiff that the defendant is estopped from denying coverage. Furthermore, subdivision 8 of section 167 Ins. of the Insurance Law does not refer to a situation as in the case at bar where coverage had terminated due to a cancellation of the policy long before the happening of the accident. (Cf. Matter of Krouner v. MVAIC, 23 A.D.2d 711, 712; McCarthy v. MVAIC, 16 A.D.2d 35, 40, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 922.)

Concur — Eager, J.P., Markewich, McNally and Bastow, JJ.; Rabin, J., deceased.


Summaries of

Perez v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 4, 1969
31 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

concluding that Insurance Law § 167, predecessor to § 3420(d), did not apply where coverage terminated due to the cancellation of the policy long before the happening of the incident

Summary of this case from Am. Home Assur. v. S. Difazio Sons Constr. Inc.
Case details for

Perez v. Hartford Accident Indemnity Co.

Case Details

Full title:GERALDINE PEREZ, Appellant, v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT INDEMNITY CO., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 4, 1969

Citations

31 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Citing Cases

Am. Home Assur. v. S. Difazio Sons Constr. Inc.

The critical distinction between a claim that triggers an obligation promptly to disclaim and a claim that…