Opinion ID: 794393
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The NYPHRM Applied

Text: 28 Horizon argues that, in the event this Court determines that New York law governs these contracts, the NYPHRM did not affect any right which had accrued prior to its enactment and, therefore, that Horizon's pre-NYPHRM contracts (whether express or implied-in-fact) were unaffected by the NYPHRM. The basis of this argument can be found in the session law enacting the NYPHRM. Section twenty-four of that session law (chapter two), dealing with effective dates and retroactivity of the NYPHRM, provides: This act shall not be construed to alter, change, affect, impair or defeat any rights, obligations, duties or interests accrued, incurred or conferred prior to the enactment of this act. 1988 N.Y. Sess. Laws 44 (McKinney). 29 The District Court rejected this argument, determining that the statutory language of the NYPHRM demonstrated that 30 [t]he legislature clearly intended to set the rates of payment from [the point of NYPHRM's enactment] forward and did not intend to exclude pre-existing contracts with foreign insurers from the statute. Rather, the legislature was simply trying to ensure that any costs that accrued prior to January 1, 1988 [the effective date of the rate provisions, see 1988 N.Y. Sess. Laws 44 (McKinney)] were not subject to the terms of the statute. Thus, [Horizon] is not exempt from the terms of the NYPHRM because of the Alteration [C]lause. 31 We agree with the rationale and conclusion of the District Court. Neither section twenty-four, nor any other provision of the NYPHRM, insulates these implied-in-fact contracts from the effects of the NYPHRM. 32