Scavone v. Kings Craft Corp.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 390 N.Y.S.2d 20,55 A.D.2d 807 |
| Parties | Paul A. SCAVONE, Appellant, v. KINGS CRAFT CORPORATION et al., Respondents. Appeal |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Smith, Murphy & Schoepperle (Richard K. Schoepperle) Buffalo, for appellant.
Raichle, Banning, Weiss & Halpern, R. William Stephens, Buffalo, for respondents.
Before MARSH, P.J., and MOULE, MAHONEY, GOLDMAN and WITMER, JJ.
A subrogated insurance carrier obtains a vested interest in any cause of action that the insured had against the wrongdoer to the extent that the insurance carrier has actually paid claims under its policy. Its rights of subrogation may not be defeated by a release to the wrongdoer granted by the insured, subsequent to the payment by the insurance carrier, provided the wrongdoer has notice of the subrogated claim (Ocean A. & G. Corp. v. Hooker Electrochem. Co., 240 N.Y. 37, 147 N.E. 351). There are sufficient allegations in the opposing affidavits of plaintiff's counsel (actually counsel for Hartford Insurance Company, subrogee) and the affidavit of plaintiff Scavone's personal counsel, David C. Laub, on the original motion to create a question of fact with respect to whether defendant had notice of the subrogated claim of Hartford Insurance Company prior to the execution of the releases. However, the evidence plaintiff sought to bring before the court on its motion to renew and reargue establishes beyond dispute that defendant had notice of the subrogated claim prior to the execution of the releases.
Special Term incorrectly appraised the legal relevancy of the two letters from Hartford Insurance Company's counsel to defendant giving explicit notice of Hartford's subrogated claim prior to the execution of the releases and should have exercised its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2221 and permitted the motion to be reheard on the new evidence submitted (2A Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., par. 2221.03). Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was properly treated by Special Term as a motion for summary judgment (CPLR 3211(c)). While plaintiff did not cross move for summary judgment dismissing defendant's defense of release, such relief may be granted (CPLR 3212(b)).
It being established on the evidence submitted by plaintiff on the motion to renew and reargue that defendant had notice of the subrogated claim of Hartford Insurance Company, the defense based upon the releases signed by Hartford's insured and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Fire v. Pacific Rent-All, Inc.
...primary right of reimbursement to the no-fault insurance carrier regardless of tortfeasor's knowledge); Scavone v. Kings Craft Corp., 55 A.D.2d 807, 390 N.Y.S.2d 20, 20 (1976) (holding that insurer's subrogation rights were not extinguished by release that failed to include subrogated econo......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 22019
...600, 122 Ill.Dec. 657, 527 N.E.2d 29 (1988); Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Meggs, 229 So.2d 823 (Miss.1969); Scavone v. Kings Craft Corp., 55 A.D.2d 807, 390 N.Y.S.2d 20 (1976). Most courts address the adequacy of the subrogation notice in a cursory fashion as a part of the general rule dealin......
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Norwalk Foods, Inc.
...N.E. 351 (1925); Silinsky v. State-Wide Insurance Company, 30 A.D.2d 1, 289 N.Y.S.2d 541 (2d Dept.1968); Scavone v. Kings Craft Corp., 55 A.D.2d 807, 391 N.Y.S.2d 386 (4th Dept.1976); Kozlowski v. Briggs Leasing Corp., 96 Misc.2d 337, 408 N.Y.S.2d 1001 (Sup.Ct.Kings Plaintiff herein never n......
-
Mt. Read Terminal, Inc. v. LeChase Const. Corp.
...v. New Home Sewing Machine Co., supra). Plaintiff urges that the amendment must fail on the merits under our ruling in Scavone v. Kings Craft Corp., 55 A.D.2d 807. In Scavone we held that a subrogated insurer's rights to recover from a wrongdoer may not be defeated by a release to the wrong......