What happened Mr. Rookie?January 3, 2015

Healthway Med. Care, P.C. v Travelers Ins. Co., 2014 NY Slip Op 51870(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

“On its cross motion for summary judgment, the burden was on defendant to demonstrate the timely and valid cancellation of the insurance policy at issue based on nonpayment of the premium. The papers submitted by defendant in support of its cross motion were sufficient to make a prima facie showing that defendant met its initial burden in compliance with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (see Matter of Auto One Ins. Co. v Forrester, 78 AD3d 1174 [2010]; GEICO Indem. v Roth, 56 AD3d 1244 [2008]; Queens Med. Supply, Inc. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 35 Misc 3d 146[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 51060[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2012]). The burden then shifted to plaintiff, as the party claiming coverage, to establish defendant’s noncompliance with the statutory requirements as to form and procedure. Inasmuch as plaintiff submitted no opposition to defendant’s cross motion, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Flagstar Bank v Bellafiore, 94 AD3d 1044 [2012]) as to the validity of the cancellation of the policy.”


There is one case that usually makes these cancellation cases very difficult:  Progressive Classic Ins. Co. v Kitchen, 46 AD3d 333 [2007]); Pomona Med. Diagnostic v MVAIC, 30 Misc.3d 132(A)(App. Term 1st Dept. 2011)


Leave a Reply