Empire Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
| Citation | 21 Misc.2d 1050,194 N.Y.S.2d 64 |
| Parties | EMPIRE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1959 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Term |
John P. Smith, New York City, John Nielsen, New York City, of counsel, for appellant.
Lawrence Eichner, New York City, for respondent.
Before STEUER, J. P., and AURELIO and TILZER, JJ.
ARON STEUER, Justice Presiding.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment and plaintiff cross-moved for the same relief.
Both parties are insurance companies and both issued policies to one Williams covering the same vehicle. Williams made a claim against plaintiff on the policy, which claim plaintiff paid. Plaintiff then sued defendant for a proportionate share of the payment made. The defense to the suit is that the policy issued by defendant was not in force at the time of the accident. Whether or not it was, is the issue in the case.
Defendant's policy was issued July 8, 1957 and expired by its terms July 7, 1958. Plaintiff's policy was issued July 8, 1958 and expired July 7, 1959. The accident occurred on July 14, 1958. Prior to the expiration of defendant's policy by its terms, defendant sent the insured a renewal for the ensuing year and so notified the Vehicle and Traffic Bureau. Williams made no response to this notice. The pertinent parts of section 93-c of the Vehicle and Traffic Law read 'No contract of insurance or renewal thereof for which a certificate of insurance has been filed with the commissioner shall be terminated by cancellation by the insurer or failure to renew by the insured until at least ten days after mailing to the named insured at the address shown on the policy a notice of termination. * * * provided, however, if another insurance contract has been procured, such other insurance contract shall, as of its effective date and hour, terminate the insurance previously certified with respect to any motor vehicles designated in both contracts.'
The above is part of the statute implementing the practice of compulsory vehicular insurance. The object is to see to that insurance is coterminous with the license to operate. The obvious intent of the quoted statute is to keep existing insurance in effect during a ten-day period in which either a renewal or a new policy may be provided. If neither, the operator must yield his license. If he is covered by a new policy, the provisions in regard to renewal become unnecessary and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodman v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...insurance may arise. That result has not been held to be objectionable. See, e.g., Empire Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Ins. Co., 21 Misc.2d 1050, 194 N.Y.S.2d 64 (Sup.Ct.App. Term 1st Dept. 1959); Whaley v. Jamestown Mut. Ins. Co., 53 Misc.2d 590, 279 N.Y.S.2d 267 (Sup.Ct. Madison Co. 1967); Do......
-
Whaley v. Jamestown Mut. Ins. Co.
...appeared objectionable. (See, e.g., Downing v. Allstate Ins. Co., 43 Misc.2d 215, 250 N.Y.S.2d 711; Empire Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 21 Misc.2d 1050, 1051, 194 N.Y.S.2d 64; and see, Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co., 52 Misc.2d 510, 514--515, 275 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Downing v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...Insurance Company policy and the Allstate policy and thus have two policies of insurance. (Empire Mutual Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 21 Misc.2d 1050-1052, 194 N.Y.S.2d 64 (Sup.Ct. Appellate Term, First Dep't. Under all of these circumstances, equitable considerations compel......
-
Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Roth
...ten-day period, the insured must procure a replacement policy or else surrender his automobile license. Empire Mutual Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 21 Misc.2d 1050, 194 N.Y.S.2d 64. For the protection of the public, the Legislature directed the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to revoke ......