From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cosentino v. William Penn Life Insurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 1, 1996
224 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

February 1, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.).


Alleging the absence of an insurable interest in the owner, plaintiff, the surviving spouse and personal representative of Dominick Cosentino (hereinafter decedent), brought this action to recover the proceeds of a $500,000 insurance policy on decedent's life issued by defendant William Penn Life Insurance Company of New York to defendant Sol Weinberg. We agree with Supreme Court's determination to dismiss the action on the basis of uncontroverted documentary evidence establishing Weinberg's status as a creditor of decedent and, thus, the existence of a legally recognized insurable interest ( see, 69 N.Y. Jur 2d, Insurance, § 898, at 319; see also, New York Life Ins. Co. v Baum, 700 F.2d 928, 934-935 [applying New York law in determining whether a creditor has an insurable interest in a debtor's life]; Reed v. Provident Sav. Life Assur. Socy., 190 N.Y. 111, 119; Wright v. Mutual Benefit Life Assn., 118 N.Y. 237, 244; Rawls v American Mut. Life Ins. Co., 27 N.Y. 282; Talbert v. Storum, 7 App. Div. 456; Alperstein v. National City Bank, 201 Misc. 47, 51).

We are not at all persuaded by plaintiff's contrary speculation, including the wholly unsupported accusation that, as an agent of William Penn, Weinberg fraudulently induced the issuance of the policy and conspired to deprive plaintiff of its proceeds. As for the claim that Weinberg failed to establish the precise amount of decedent's indebtedness, it is sufficient to note that the right "to recover the whole amount provided by the policy is well settled, even if the debt owing the payee by the person whose life was insured was less than the sum insured, or had been paid in the lifetime of the insured" ( Wright v. Mutual Benefit Life Assn., supra, at 244; see, New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Caruso, 73 N.Y.2d 74).

Plaintiff's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be either unpreserved for review or lacking in merit.

Cardona, P.J., White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Cosentino v. William Penn Life Insurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Feb 1, 1996
224 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Cosentino v. William Penn Life Insurance Co.

Case Details

Full title:ETRUSCA COSENTINO, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Feb 1, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
636 N.Y.S.2d 943

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Nelson

See, e.g., U.S. v. Supplee–Biddle Co., 265 U.S. 189, 44 S.Ct. 546, 68 L.Ed. 970 (1924) ; Murray, Exrs., v.…

Hota v. Camaj

However, Insurance Law § 3205(b)(1) permits any person of lawful age who has procured a contract of insurance…