Summary
explaining how state law insurance regulations require different terms of notice for cancellation and non-renewal
Summary of this case from Freishtat v. Liveperson, Inc.Opinion
October 6, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
The notice of cancellation sent by additional respondent insurer to its insured was clearly a mid-term cancellation of an existing policy, where the insurer had offered and the insured had agreed to renew the policy shortly before its December 1993 expiration date, the insured had made three of four premium installment payments between December 1993 and March 1994, and the insurer sent the notice of cancellation in April 1994 shortly after the insured's failure to pay the fourth installment. Nor is there anything on the face of this "notice of cancellation" to indicate that it was actually a notice of nonrenewal. Accordingly, the notice, to be effective, had to strictly comply with the requirements of North Carolina General Statutes former § 20-310 (f), but did not, in that it did not advise the insured that she had a right to have the cancellation reviewed by the Commissioner of Insurance and that operating a motor vehicle without insurance is a misdemeanor involving certain penalties (paras [4], [5]). Absent such compliance, the policy "continue[d] in effect despite the insured's failure to pay in full the required premium" ( Pearson v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 325 N.C. 246, 254, 382 S.E.2d 745, 748 citing, inter alia, Perkins v. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 274 N.C. 134, 140, 161 S.E.2d 536, 540), even after its scheduled June 1994 expiration date ( cf., Perkins v. American Mut. Fire Ins. Co., supra, 274 N.C., at 142, 161 S.E.2d at 541, quoting Teeter v. Allstate Ins. Co., 9 A.D.2d 176, 181, aff'd 9 N.Y.2d 655). It therefore does not avail additional respondent insurer that the accident occurred in November 1994.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.