Summary
In Grunhut, we specifically rejected the insurer's argument that it was protecting the rights of all parties when it continued to accept premiums for months after commencing the rescission action (83 A.D.3d at 529, 920 N.Y.S.2d 659).
Summary of this case from United States Life Ins. Co. v. BlumenfeldOpinion
No. 4821.
April 19, 2011.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered September 29, 2009, which denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in defendants' favor dismissing the complaint.
Schindel, Framan, Lipsius, Gardner Rabinovich LLP, New York (Ira S. Lipsius of counsel), for appellants.
Edison, McDowell Hetherington LLP, Houston, TX (David T. McDowell, of the Texas Bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Acosta, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
By accepting premium payments for three months after commencing this action to rescind the insurance policies, and doing so apparently intentionally (to "protect" the insured pending a determination of the action), plaintiff waived its right to rescind the policies ( Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Rodriguez, 65 AD3d 1, 7-11).
[Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 32227(U).]