Opinion ID: 2132730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Katz v American Mayflower Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.

Text: On July 11, 1997, plaintiff signed an insurance application with American Mayflower Life Insurance Company of New York for a term life policy of one million dollars. The policy was issued on September 2, 1997 and delivered on September 24, 1997. On the date of delivery, plaintiff sent in his initial premium for $447.20. His annual premium, as stated on the contract, was $1,720, to be paid in quarterly installments. The policy also stated when each subsequent premium was due until the full premium was paid. Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Like the Goldman and Franco plaintiffs, Katz argues that the insurance contract was breached and that the defendant was unjustly enriched. Defendant denies that the policy is ambiguous and instead points to the policy language as clearly stating the dates of coverage and when the premiums are due. Defendant argues that all premiums, after the initial premium, were due based on the policy date, not the delivery date, and that plaintiff continued to pay premiums under this policy for four years prior to filing a complaint. In fact, the premium schedule which governed defendant's policy stated that the premiums would be due on the 2nd of March, June, September and December. While the Goldman and Franco policies provide for a 10-day free look period, the Katz policy allows for a 20-day free look period in which the insured can reject the policy and be refunded any previously paid premiums. The policy states that the premiums must be paid in advance of coverage and that the total initial premium must be paid as shown in the Schedule on or before policy delivery. Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss brought by Guardian Life against the Francos. On the same date, the Supreme Court granted American Mayflower's motion to dismiss the Katz complaint for the reasons stated in its Franco decision. The Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court in Katz, and, based upon its Katz decision, affirmed Supreme Court's determination in Franco v Guardian Life. In Katz, the Appellate Division wrote: due to plaintiff's selection of the C.O.D. payment option, American Mayflower set different dates for the commencement of coverage and the premium due dates [which] does not constitute a breach of contract since they are, as plaintiff concedes, part of the contract. Thus, any claim that plaintiff paid a premium for a period of time before coverage commenced is contradicted by the express terms of the contract. (14 AD3d 195, 198 [2004].) In Franco and Katz, the Appellate Division granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal to this Court and certified the following question: Was the order of this Court, which affirmed the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?