Opinion
April 29, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order and judgment dated April 28, 1989, is dismissed, as that order and judgment was superseded by the order dated October 26, 1989, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated October 26, 1989, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents Dorothy Doering, Henry Doering and Rosemary Bachman are awarded one bill of costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff Selective Insurance Company of America should be equitably estopped from denying coverage under the policy issued to its insured Richard L. Lam (see, Hartford Ins. Group v Mello, 81 A.D.2d 577; cf., Schiff Assocs. v. Flack, 51 N.Y.2d 692). Since the policy in question was issued in New Jersey by a New Jersey insurer, we note that the law of that State applies to the question of whether there had been an effective cancellation (see, Employers' Liab. Assur. Corp. v. Aresty, 11 A.D.2d 331, 333, affd 11 N.Y.2d 696). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the plaintiff insurer would have been barred under applicable New Jersey law from asserting that the subject policy had been canceled (see, Bonnet v. Stewart, 68 N.J. 287, 344 A.2d 321; Merchants Indem. Corp. v. Eggleston, 37 N.J. 114, 179 A.2d 505). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly declared that the insurer has a duty to defend and indemnify Richard L. Lam concerning the accident which occurred on November 13, 1984. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.