Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Clark v. Columbian Mutual Life Insurance Company
Citations: 221 A.D.2d 227; 633 N.Y.S.2d 311; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; November 15, 1995; New York; State Appellate Court
The Supreme Court of New York County's judgment, which granted the defendant insurer's motion for summary judgment regarding the non-payment of a life insurance policy, has been unanimously reversed. The court denied the motion, ordering that costs and disbursements be paid to the plaintiff. The case involves the plaintiff, beneficiary of Paul Clark, who died on May 30, 1991. The defendant insurer claimed the policy lapsed due to Clark's non-payment of a quarterly premium due on March 21, 1991. The insurer asserted it had mailed a Notice of Premium Due on February 20, 1991, and a Late Payment Notice on April 23, 1991. The plaintiff contested the receipt of these notices, citing New York Insurance Law § 3211. The IAS Court had originally granted the insurer's motion based on testimony from David Smith, an employee of the insurer, regarding their mailing practices. However, the appellate court found that these practices did not satisfy the legal standards necessary to assume proper mailing of the notices. Specifically, Smith's lack of knowledge about the notice generation process and failure to verify that the notices were correctly addressed or that all intended recipients were included in the mailing undermined the validity of the insurer's claims. The court noted that there was no evidence that the mailing list was checked against the actual envelopes, nor was there confirmation that the number of envelopes matched the number of names on the list. Therefore, there were unresolved factual issues regarding the mailing of the notices, preventing the presumption of receipt by the insured and rendering the summary judgment inappropriate.