Case Name: Joseph Degnan, Appellant, v. General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, of Perth, Scotland, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-05-08
Citations: 221 N.Y. 484
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Degnan, Appellant, v. General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, of Perth, Scotland, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 221
Pages: 484–485

Head Matter:
Joseph Degnan, Appellant, v. General Accident, Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, of Perth, Scotland, Respondent.
(Argued April 27, 1917;
decided May 8, 1917.)
Degnan v. General Ace., F. & L. Assur. Corp., Ltd., 161 App. Div. 439, affirmed.
Appeal from a judgment entered June 13, 1914, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and directing a dismissal of the complaint in an action by an insurance broker to recover commissions. Plaintiff brought two applications for accident liability insurance to defendant’s general agents who stated that his compensation would be twenty five per cent of the earned premiums. After 4he policies' had been in force some months the policies, at the request of the insured,' were canceled and new policies issued. The plaintiff had received his commis sion upon the policy issued to the contracting company to the date of cancellation, and brings this action to recover commissions alleged to have accrued after the cancellation.
Lemuel E. Quigg for appellant.
Stephen P. Anderton for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In holding that the complaint was properly dismissed by the Appellate Division, we confine our decision to the action now before us. We leave open the question whether the plaintiff may recover his commissions on the basis of the short rate premium which the defendant failed to exact in canceling the policies. That is not the theory either of the complaint or of the trial. The complaint was framed and the action tried upon the theory that the cancellation was ineffective and that the policies remained in force.
The judgment should be affirmed with costs.
Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Crane and Andrews, JJ., concur; McLaughlin, J., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.