AMT CAPITAL HOLDINGS v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA (2018)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2017, dismissing the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.  Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 16, 2017, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Neither CPLR 302(a)(1) nor Insurance Law § 1213(b)(1) provides a basis on which New York courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant, which, as plaintiff acknowledges, is incorporated in Canada, has its principal place of business in Canada, and is not authorized to do business in New York. Defendant issued a $10 million life insurance policy to a trust, designated on the policy application as the policy owner and beneficiary, which the record shows has its situs in New Jersey.  The policy application was signed in New Jersey, and the receipt reflecting delivery of the policy identifies New Jersey as the place of execution.  While the trustee may be a New York resident, he is neither the designated owner nor a beneficiary of the policy.

Plaintiff cites no authority to support its argument that New York courts may exercise jurisdiction over defendant because the policy insured the life of a New York resident.  Nor do defendant's purported ties to New York suffice.  Plaintiff points out that the medical portion of the application was signed in New York by the insured and the medical examiner and that, before it was delivered to the trustee, the policy passed through two New York intermediaries.  These transactions are not only too fleeting to provide a jurisdictional foundation, but are also not the acts from which plaintiff's claims arise (see CPLR 302[a][1];  see also Kasprzak v. Mut. Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 1 F.Supp. 915 [W.D.N.Y. 1932];  1 Couch on Ins. § 3:14 [3d ed 2017];  McKee Elec. Co. v. Rauland–Borg Corp., 20 N.Y.2d 377, 283 N.Y.S.2d 34, 229 N.E.2d 604 [1967] ).  Even assuming, as the record suggests, that defendant assured plaintiff (which acquired ownership of the policy) of the incontestability of the policy by a letter faxed to a New York number, this is not sufficient to establish New York jurisdiction over defendant (see America/Intl. 1994 Venture v. Mau, 146 A.D.3d 40, 42 N.Y.S.3d 188 [2d Dept. 2016] ).

Insurance Law § 1213 is inapplicable, because its purpose is to protect the interests of New York residents who “hold” policies “delivered in this state” (subsection [a] ).  The record does not support jurisdiction under subsection (b)(1)(A), (B) or (C).  As Insurance Law § 1213(b)(1)(D) has been interpreted as analogous to CPLR 302(a)(1) (see Karl Andersen v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, SD NY, 15 Civ. 4422[AKH], November 13, 2015, citing Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nass, 126 Misc.2d 329, 481 N.Y.S.2d 952 [Sup. Ct., Suffolk County 1984], affd 121 A.D.2d 498, 503 N.Y.S.2d 820 [2d Dept. 1986];  Ringers' Dutchocs, Inc. v. S.S.S.L. 180, 494 F.2d 678 [2d Cir.1974] ), it, too, is inapplicable.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.