Opinion ID: 2132730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

Text: On January 30, 2002, plaintiff submitted an application to MetLife for a yearly renewable term life insurance policy in the amount of $250,000. On May 30, 2002, the policy was delivered and plaintiff paid his annual premium. The insurer set the policy date as May 6, 2002. The total annual premium amount was $217.50. Goldman brought a putative class action alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violations under General Business Law § 349. In the complaint and on this motion to dismiss, plaintiff argues that since he was not covered for the 24 days between May 6 and May 30, 2002, yet was required to pay for that period of time, there was a breach of contract. He argues that the term annual premium is ambiguous because it leads the average insured to believe that he or she will receive 365 days of coverage. In fact, based upon the delay from the policy date until the date of payment and delivery of the policy, there are fewer than 365 days of coverage in the first year of the policy. Defendant counters that there is no breach, the policy is not ambiguous and that the dates of coverage are in accordance with the payment of the premiums. Defendant points to the language of the application, which is incorporated into the policy and states no insurance will take effect until a policy is delivered to the owner and the full first premium due is paid. Further, plaintiff had the option of not accepting the policy and receiving a refund of any premiums already paid. According to defendant, the term annual premium never referred to the days of coverage but rather to the frequency of payment. Supreme Court denied MetLife's motion to dismiss based on ambiguity in the contract specifically related to payment for days of coverage without actually receiving coverage. The Appellate Division reversed, granted the insurer's motion and dismissed the complaint, finding that the terms of the subject insurance policy, including the initial application, which was incorporated therein, were not ambiguous and clearly set forth when coverage was to begin and when the first and subsequent annual premiums were to be paid by the C.O.D. policyholders. (13 AD3d 289, 290 [2004].) The Appellate Division granted plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal and certified the following question to this Court: Was the order of this Court, which reversed the order of Supreme Court, properly made?