Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court-appellate-division/1168132.html
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 15:33:11
Document Index: 588242382

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2002313', '§\u2002313', '§\u2002313', '§\u2002313', '§\u2002313', '§\u2002321', '§\u2002313', '§\u2002370', '§\u2002370', '§\u2002370']

AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY v. Pasquale C. Viscuso, et al., Defendants-Respondents. | FindLaw
AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY v. Pasquale C. Viscuso, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
AMERICAN TRANSIT INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lincoln HINDS, et al., Defendants, Pasquale C. Viscuso, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
BUCKLEY, P.J., MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS, WILLIAMS, SWEENY, JJ. Robinson & Cole LLP, New York (Katherine C. Glynn of counsel), for appellant. Michele A. Vitali & Associates, East Elmhurst (E. Richard Vieira of counsel), for respondents.
Hinds was a named defendant in two lawsuits stemming from the November 9, 2000 accident. The first was a lawsuit brought by defendant Morris alleging serious personal injuries. The second was an action by defendant Northeastern, as subrogor of defendant Pasquale Viscuso, alleging property damage. Plaintiff mistakenly filed answers on behalf of defendants Hinds and Brown in both actions.
The IAS court applied Vehicle & Traffic Law § 313 and denied plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment on the ground that plaintiff had not effectively canceled Hinds's insurance policy. The Court stated:
It appears that Vehicle & Traffic Law § 313(2)(a) was not complied with in that the Notice of Termination was filed prior to the termination date. Therefore, in searching the record, the court finds that the policy remains in effect and this action is dismissed.
In general, Vehicle & Traffic Law § 313 governs what notice is required for termination of a motor vehicle insurance policy. That section mandates that an insurer notify the insured prior to cancelling the policy, presumably to allow the insured to fight the cancellation or to procure alternative insurance. Vehicle & Traffic Law § 313(2)(a) obligates the insurer to notify the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the insured no later than 30 days after the effective date of the cancellation.
However, Vehicle & Traffic Law § 313 does not apply to this case, because the subject policy covered a vehicle for hire. Vehicle & Traffic Law § 321 exempts policies covering such vehicles from the notification provisions under Vehicle & Traffic Law § 313. The cancellation of an insurance policy for a vehicle for hire is governed by Vehicle & Traffic Law § 370. That section requires the insurer to file a certificate of cancellation with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. The Department of Motor Vehicles then provides notification to the owner. It is uncontested that plaintiff complied with § 370 by sending the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles notice that it intended to cancel defendant Hinds's insurance policy effective October 12, 2000. As the policy was effectively canceled when the subject accident took place, plaintiff is not liable for any actions brought as a result thereof.
The holdings in Matter of Wilson v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 242 A.D.2d 636, 662 N.Y.S.2d 561 [1997] and Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp. v. Eagle Ins. Co., 273 A.D.2d 65, 708 N.Y.S.2d 406 [2000] are not to the contrary. In both of these cases, termination notices under § 370 were deemed ineffective because of confusion caused by the insurers' subsequent actions. Here, by contrast plaintiff's actions caused no confusion, and the fact that plaintiff sent Hinds the August 24, 2000 letter notifying him that the insurer intended to cancel the policy effective October 12, 2000 does not render the termination notice filed with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles ineffective.