Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, Llp v. Title
| Decision Date | 04 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | 8892,Index 1602015/18 |
| Citation | 171 A.D.3d 465,96 N.Y.S.3d 526 (Mem) |
| Parties | In re SCHAFFER, SCHONHOLZ & DROSSMAN, LLP, Petitioner, v. Rachel S. TITLE, M.D., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York (Amina Hassan of counsel), for petitioner.
Richard A. Klass, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Sweeny, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kern, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Upon facts submitted to this Court pursuant to CPLR 3222(b)(3), it is declared that petitioner is entitled to the cash proceeds resulting from the demutualization of nonparty Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC). The Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County is directed to enter judgment awarding petitioner said cash proceeds, including interest accrued while the proceeds were in escrow.
Although respondent was named as the insured on the relevant MLMIC professional liability insurance policy, petitioner purchased the policy and paid all the premiums on it. Respondent does not deny that she did not pay any of the annual premiums or any of the other costs related to the policy. Nor did she bargain for the benefit of the demutualization proceeds. Awarding respondent the cash proceeds of MLMIC's demutualization would result in her unjust enrichment (see Ruocco v. Bateman, Eichler, Hill, Richards, Inc., 903 F.2d 1232, 1238 [9th Cir.1990], cert denied 498 U.S. 899, 111 S.Ct. 254, 112 L.Ed.2d 212 [1990] ; Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers & Warehouse Workers Union [Ind.] Health & Welfare Fund v. Local 710, Intl. Bhd. of Teamsters, Chicago Truck Drivers, Helper and Warehouse Workers Union [Ind.] Pension Fund, 2005 WL 525427, *4, 8 [N.D. Ill., Mar. 4, 2005] ).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbia Mem'l Hosp. v. Hinds
...[Sup. Ct. 2019] ). The court relied exclusively on a First Department case, Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title, 171 A.D.3d 465, 96 N.Y.S.3d 526 (1st Dept. 2019), which held that an employer that paid the insurance policy premiums, rather than the employee who was the nam......
-
Columbia Mem'l Hosp. v. Hinds
...[Sup. Ct. 2019] ). The court relied exclusively on a First Department case, Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title, 171 A.D.3d 465, 96 N.Y.S.3d 526 (1st Dept. 2019), which held that an employer that paid the insurance policy premiums, rather than the employee who was the nam......
-
Robert M. Schneider, M.D., P.C. v. Licciardi, 19-0120
...medical care to New York patients during his time as an independent contractor (see Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title , 171 A.D.3d 465, 465, 96 N.Y.S.3d 526 [1st Dept. 2019] ). Notably, an unjust enrichment claim cannot be a contract claim, so the claim is not based on the negoti......
-
Maple Med., LLP v. Scott
...appellate decision on point—that of the Appellate Division, First Department, in Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title , 171 A.D.3d 465, 96 N.Y.S.3d 526 (hereinafter Schaffer ). Schaffer held that the employer practice group was entitled to the payout based upon a theory of......