Family Coatings, Inc. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 February 1991 |
| Citation | 566 N.Y.S.2d 106,170 A.D.2d 816 |
| Parties | FAMILY COATINGS, INC., Respondent, v. MICHIGAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and WEISS, LEVINE, MERCURE and HARVEY, JJ.
Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Meehan, J.), entered December 18, 1989 in Rockland County, which denied defendant Michigan Mutual Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it.
Defendant Michigan Mutual Insurance Company issued a comprehensive general liability insurance policy to plaintiff and defendant A to Z Coatings, Inc. for the one-year period commencing August 20, 1984. The policy was canceled for nonpayment of premium effective November 19, 1984. Michigan Mutual brought an action against A to Z Coatings in Supreme Court, Nassau County, to recover the unpaid earned premium of $8,825 and obtained a default judgment for that amount and interest, costs and disbursements. Michigan Mutual has been wholly unsuccessful in its efforts to collect on that judgment. Plaintiff subsequently brought this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that it is not indebted to Michigan Mutual for premiums due on the policy. Michigan Mutual counterclaimed for the amount of the unpaid earned premium and, following joinder of issue, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granting the relief demanded in the counterclaim. Supreme Court denied the motion upon the ground that Michigan Mutual failed to establish that the policy was issued at plaintiff's request. Michigan Mutual appeals.
We reverse. Michigan Mutual supported its motion with an affidavit of its regional special account representative which competently established the issuance of the policy to plaintiff and A to Z Coatings, and a computation of the earned premium by means of an audit of the insured's books and records conducted at the termination of the policy. This showing established prima facie plaintiff's liability for payment of the premium (see, St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co. v. Capri Constr. Corp., 160 A.D.2d 381, 553 N.Y.S.2d 427, lv. granted 76 N.Y.2d 711, 563 N.Y.S.2d 62, 564 N.E.2d 672) and shifted the burden to plaintiff to come forward with evidence in support of its defense that it did not request or receive the benefit of the insurance coverage (see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Hampshire Ins. Co., Am. Home Assurance Co., Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Fresh Direct Holdings, Inc.
...insured may demonstrate that it did not receive the benefits owed to it under the insurance policy. See Family Coatings, Inc. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. 170 A.D.2d 816 (3rd Dep't 1991). Alternatively, the insured may demonstrate a breach of an express policy provision. Commissioners of the S......
-
Commissioners of the State Ins. Fund v. BSB Constr., Inc.
...of State Ins. Fund v. Albany Capitaland Enters., Inc., 18 A.D.3d 934, 935, 18 A.D.3d 934 [2005] ; Family Coatings v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 170 A.D.2d 816, 817, 566 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1991] ), all of which plaintiff submitted, along with, among other things, affidavits from its attorney and und......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thalle Const. Co., Inc., 99 CIV. 4994 (WCC).
...v. Kings Nissan, Inc., No. 93-CV-3560, slip op. at *8 (E.D.N.Y. April 21, 1994) (citing Family Coatings, Inc. v. Michigan Mutual Ins. Co., 170 A.D.2d 816, 566 N.Y.S.2d 106 (App. Div.3d Dep't 1991)). See also Safeguard Ins. Co. v. E. Tetz & Sons, Inc., 271 A.D.2d 516, 706 N.Y.S.2d 351, 351 (......
-
Essex Ins. Co. v. Laruccia Const., Inc.
...576 N.Y.S.2d 73, 581 N.E.2d 1328; Safeguard Ins. Co. v. Tetz & Sons, 271 A.D.2d 516, 706 N.Y.S.2d 351; cf. Family Coatings v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 170 A.D.2d 816, 566 N.Y.S.2d 106). The insurer's failure to make a prima facie showing demonstrating the absence of a triable issue of fact r......