IN THE MATTER OF TRANSIT CASUALTY COMPANY. ALAN DIGIROL, APPELLANT, v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE &C., RESPONDENT.
79 N.Y.2d 13, 588 N.E.2d 38, 580 N.Y.S.2d 140 (1992).
January 14, 1992
1 No. 236
Decided January 14, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Norman A. Palmiere, for Appellant.
David B. Hamm, for Respondent.
WACHTLER, CH.J.:
Claimant owned a small hotel which was destroyed by fire and which was
insured by a company now insolvent and in liquidation by order of a
Missouri court. He seeks to share as a creditor in the available
assets, but the Superintendent of Insurance has rejected his claim on
the ground that the liquidation order cancelled all of the company's
policies on a specified date, before the fire occurred. Claimant was
not a party to the liquidation proceedings and, as both lower courts
held, received no actual or constructive notice of the cancellation
order before sustaining the loss. Although the policy provides that it
cannot be terminated unless the insured receives prior written notice
of cancellation, the courts below upheld the Superintendent's
determination concluding that the claimant's rights under the policy
were extinguished by operation of law when the company was placed in
liquidation.
On this appeal claimant urges that the order of the Missouri court did
not extinguish vested rights and that he had a vested right to prior
notice of any cancellation before the policy could be effectively
terminated, which he did not receive. He also contends that he had a
due process right to some form of actual notice before the court
cancelled the policy because it is fundamentally unfair for the State
to deprive a person of insurance protection under an existing contract
without, at least, giving the insured notice of the cancellation order
and a reasonable opportunity to obtain another policy to cover the
risk.
We have concluded that there is merit to the claimant's first argument
and, therefore, reverse the order of the Appellate Division without
SNIPPETS:
ALAN DIGIROL, APPELLANT, v. SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE &C., RESPONDENT.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Claimant owned a small hotel which was destroyed by fire and which was insured by a company
He seeks to share as a creditor in the available assets, but the Superintendent of Insurance
Claimant was not a party to the liquidation proceedings and, as both lower courts held,
Although the policy provides that it cannot be terminated unless the insured receives prior
He also contends that he had a due process right to some form of actual notice before the
In 1984, the claimant, Alan Digirol, owned the Alton Hotel, located in Sodus, New York.
The policy was issued by the Transit Casualty Co., a foreign corporation, domiciled in
Pursuant to the Uniform Insurer's Liquidation Act ), the Supreme Court of this State
Included with the letter was a copy of the liquidation order and a memo informing the
The matter was referred to a referee, who concluded, after a hearing, that notice was
He recommended that the claim be allowed because publication and mailing to a prior address,
As the Superintendent concedes, the contractual obligation to pay for losses suffered prior
77 NY2d 144 ).
At the time of liquidation in this case that right matured and what remained to be done was
The problem here is not that the liquidation process foreclosed prior notice of cancellation,
The specific goals of the Uniform Act are set forth in a prefatory note identifying
The majority arrives at this result by concluding that the notice provisions contained in
|
