From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Travelers Indemnity Company v. Avelino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 1993
191 A.D.2d 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

March 9, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.).


Contrary to the finding of the motion court, the compulsory automobile insurance laws of this State provide only for prospective cancellation of automobile insurance policies, thereby abrogating an insurer's common-law right to void a policy from its inception on the ground that it was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation (see, Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Carrero, 103 A.D.2d 694, 694-695).

However, the foregoing rule is designed to protect innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents, and the prohibition against ab initio cancellation of policies does not bar this action where it is alleged that the defendant claimant himself participated in the fraudulent issuance of the policy. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint seeking declaratory relief was properly denied. Material questions of fact remain as to his complicity.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Asch and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Travelers Indemnity Company v. Avelino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 9, 1993
191 A.D.2d 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Travelers Indemnity Company v. Avelino

Case Details

Full title:TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Respondent, v. VIRGILIO AVELINO, Appellant…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 1993

Citations

191 A.D.2d 229 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
594 N.Y.S.2d 249

Citing Cases

Taradena v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

Plaintiff appeals from an order denying her motion for summary judgment. We agree with Nationwide that, in…

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Merle

Upon the foregoing documents, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted for the reasons set…