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.
COMPANION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, appellant-respondent, v. ALL STATE ABSTRACT CORP., respondent-appellant, Angela Wallace, etc., respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not obligated to pay the proceeds of a policy of life insurance, the plaintiff appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated November 22, 2004, as granted those branches of the motion of the defendant All State Abstract Corp. which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment on the first counterclaim declaring the insured's death was covered by the subject life insurance policy and obligating the plaintiff to pay the face amount to the defendant All State Abstract Corp., (2) a second order of the same court, also dated November 22, 2004, which denied its motion for a subpoena duces tecum, (3) a third order of the same court, also dated November 22, 2004, which denied its motion for a so-called “qualified HIPAA Protective Order,” (4) so much of a fourth order of the same court, also dated November 22, 2004, as granted two motions of the defendant Angela Wallace to quash the subpoena for her testimony as a nonparty witness and the subpoena duces tecum issued by the plaintiff, and (5) an order of the same court dated May 31, 2005, which denied the separate motions of the plaintiff for leave to renew and reargue the prior motions, and the defendant All State Abstract Corp. cross-appeals from so much of the first order dated November 22, 2004, as, upon granting that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its first counterclaim, determined that interest on the proceeds of the life insurance policy should not accrue from the date of the insured's death but instead should accrue from the date of the verification of the complaint, and, upon searching the record, awarded Companion Life Insurance Company of New York summary judgment dismissing its counterclaim for an award of an attorney's fee.
ORDERED that the first order dated November 22, 2004, is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof determining that interest on the proceeds of the life insurance policy should accrue from the date of the verification of the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision determining that interest should accrue from the date of the insured's death; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the second order dated November 22, 2004, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the third order dated November 22, 2004, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the fourth order dated November 22, 2004, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated May 31, 2005, as denied those branches of the plaintiff's motions which were for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated May 31, 2005, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants All State Abstract Corp. and Angela Wallace, payable by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff Companion Life Insurance Company of New York (hereinafter Companion) issued a key man life insurance policy to the beneficiary defendant All State Abstract Corp. (hereinafter All State) insuring the life of its primary shareholder, Joseph T. Wallace (hereinafter the insured). The policy provided that Companion would “pay the death benefit of this policy to the beneficiary upon the receipt at the Home Office of proof that the Insured's death occurred while the policy was in force.” While the policy was in force the insured died of “Cocaine & Alcohol Toxicity,” and All State sought to recover the proceeds of the policy. Thereafter, Companion brought this action, inter alia, seeking a judgment declaring that it was not obligated to pay the proceeds of the policy. All State counterclaimed against Companion seeking, inter alia, a judgment declaring that Companion was obligated under the terms of the policy for the full face amount of the policy with interest from the date of the insured's death and for an award of an attorney's fee.
The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of All State on its first counterclaim declaring the death of the insured was covered by the policy and that Companion was obligated to pay the face amount of the policy. All State established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under the policy by submitting evidence that the insured died while the policy was in force and that it submitted the requisite proof to Companion's Home Office (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572; Avdeychik v. Allstate Ins. Co., 303 A.D.2d 700, 758 N.Y.S.2d 80). In opposition, Companion failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise material issues of fact or to demonstrate an acceptable excuse for the failure to raise such an issue (see Zuckerman v. City of N.Y., 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718; Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., supra ).
The Supreme Court properly rejected Companion's request for further discovery prior to the determination of All State's summary judgment motion pursuant to CPLR 3212(f). In order to provide a basis pursuant to CPLR 3212(f) for postponing a decision, a party must show more than a mere hope that it might be able to uncover some evidence during the discovery process (see Kershis v. City of New York, 303 A.D.2d 643, 756 N.Y.S.2d 786; Leggio v. County of Nassau, 281 A.D.2d 518, 519, 721 N.Y.S.2d 837; Lightfoot v. City of New York, 279 A.D.2d 457, 458, 719 N.Y.S.2d 99). In addition, the party must show that its ignorance was unavoidable and that reasonable attempts were made to discover the facts which would give rise to a triable issue of fact (see Gillinder v. Hemmes, 298 A.D.2d 493, 748 N.Y.S.2d 786; Cruz v. Otis El. Co., 238 A.D.2d 540, 541, 656 N.Y.S.2d 688). Companion failed to meet this burden. Moreover, we reject Companion's specific contention that it was entitled to nonparty disclosure from the insured's wife where it failed to make the requisite showing of “special circumstances” (Cirale v. 80 Pine St. Corp., 35 N.Y.2d 113, 117, 359 N.Y.S.2d 1, 316 N.E.2d 301; see Moran v. McCarthy, Safrath & Carbone, P.C., 31 A.D.3d 725, 819 N.Y.S.2d 538; Tannenbaum v. Tenenbaum, 8 A.D.3d 360, 777 N.Y.S.2d 769; Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brittenham, 283 A.D.2d 629, 725 N.Y.S.2d 84).
The Supreme Court erred, however, in failing to award All State interest from the date of the insured's death. Pursuant to the express terms of Insurance Law § 3214, interest upon the proceeds of a life insurance policy, such as the one at bar, “shall be paid from the date of the death of the insured.”
The branches of Companion's motions which were for leave to renew were properly denied. A motion for leave to renew must (1) be based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination and (2) set forth a reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion (see CPLR 2221[e]; O'Connell v. Post, 27 A.D.3d 631, 810 N.Y.S.2d 668; Renna v. Gullo, 19 A.D.3d 472, 797 N.Y.S.2d 115). Companion failed to set forth a reasonable justification for its failure to present the alleged new facts on the prior motions (see O'Connell v. Post, supra; Elder v. Elder, 21 A.D.3d 1055, 802 N.Y.S.2d 457).
The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Companion dismissing All State's counterclaim for an award of an attorney's fee (see generally U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. City Club Hotel, LLC, 3 N.Y.3d 592, 597-598, 789 N.Y.S.2d 470, 822 N.E.2d 777; Mighty Midgets v. Centennial Ins. Co., 47 N.Y.2d 12, 21-22, 416 N.Y.S.2d 559, 389 N.E.2d 1080; RAD Ventures Corp. v. Artukmac, 31 A.D.3d 412, 818 N.Y.S.2d 527).
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: December 12, 2006
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)