Case Name: Irene Schleimer, Respondent, v. Empire Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1972-10-13
Citations: 71 Misc. 2d 1014
Docket Number: 
Parties: Irene Schleimer, Respondent, v. Empire Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 71
Pages: 1014–1016

Head Matter:
Irene Schleimer, Respondent, v. Empire Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
October 13, 1972.
jRaymond J. MacDonnell, Philip Hoffer, Bose L. Hoffer and Peter T. Affatato for appellant. Irving G. Schleimer for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The issue in this case is whether an insurer of an automobile is under a duty to give notice to a party named as loss payee " of cancellation of the policy.
A party so designated has generally been considered to be a mere appointee with the right to receive the proceeds of the loss to the extent of his interest. Under a limited loss payable clause the rule is that if the policy is not collectible by the insured, the appointee cannot recover (5A Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, § 3335, pp. 143, 144, 146). There are, of course, loss payable clauses which more fully protect the interests of the payee but, in this case, the designation was in a binder in which the plaintiff was only described as loss payee. We cannot hold that this plaintiff is entitled to the same protection as a mortgagee under a policy containing the standard mortgagee clause since notice must be and is required under that clause (Insurance Law, § 168).
In th@ absence of either contractual or statutory protection, the loss payee cannot recover unless the named insured had a viable policy and could collect the proceeds (Eastside Garage v. New Brunswick Fire Ins. Co., 198 App. Div. 408).
The judgment should be reversed with $30 costs and the complaint dismissed.