Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Celia MELLA, plaintiff-respondent, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant-respondent, Anthony J. Chille, respondent-appellant.
In an action, inter alia, to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the defendants, State Farm Insurance Company and Anthony J. Chille, respectively appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Levine, J.), entered August 25, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $15,737.07.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified by deleting the provision thereof which is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Anthony J. Chille and substituting therefor a provision dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against that defendant; as so modified the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Inasmuch as the defendant State Farm Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm) failed to satisfy its “strict obligation” to inform the plaintiff of the mandatory photo inspection requirement and to provide the plaintiff with a list of inspection sites, the automobile physical damage insurance policy did not lapse (Insurance Law § 3411; 11 NYCRR part 67; see, Siddiqui v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 255 A.D.2d 30, 687 N.Y.S.2d 457; Govan v. Motor Ins. Corp. CIM Ins., 167 Misc.2d 733, 736, 643 N.Y.S.2d 883; Valachovic v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 105 Misc.2d 577, 580, 432 N.Y.S.2d 575, affd. 84 A.D.2d 879, 444 N.Y.S.2d 734).
However, the Supreme Court erred in extending that obligation to the defendant Anthony J. Chille, as the statutory duty is imposed solely on the insurance carrier, State Farm (see, Insurance Law § 3411; 11 NYCRR part 67).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: March 13, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)