Opinion
July 13, 1970
Appeal from an order-judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 8, 1969, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs summary judgment and declared that a fund created by an agreement between the District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, AFL/CIO, and an Employers Group for the payment of earned vacation wages to employees, members of that labor union, is not subject to the provisions of article III-A of the Insurance Law. Judgment affirmed, without costs. In determining that the District 2, M.E.B.A. Vacation Plan does not come under the purview of article III-A of the Insurance Law, the Special Term applied the doctrine of ejusdem generis in construing the controlling section 37-a of that article of the Insurance Law ( McKay v. Stewart, 59 Misc.2d 380). As appears from its said opinion, Special Term noted, in construing that provision of the Insurance Law, (1) that in the definition therein of "employee welfare fund" specific reference is only made to those funds created "by the purchase of insurance or annuity contracts" and (2) that in the definition therein of "employee benefits" covered by the provisions of that article specific reference is only made to "medical, surgical or hospital care or benefits" and to other employee benefits that are in the nature of insurance or covered by insurance. Thus, Special Term concluded that the fund created by the Vacation Plan administered by plaintiffs is not an "employee welfare fund" covered by insurance or giving insurance benefits that must be registered under article III-A of the Insurance Law. We agree that the ejusdem generis canon of construction confirms the propriety of the declaratory judgment herein (cf. Daly v. Haight, 170 App. Div. 469, affd. 224 N.Y. 726; People ex rel. Huber v. Feitner, 71 App. Div. 479, affd. 171 N.Y. 683). Moreover, in our view, the propriety of the judgment herein is also confirmed if we apply the fundamental rule of statutory construction — that a statute should be construed to further the object of its enactment (cf. Matter of Blatnicky v. Ciancimino, 1 A.D.2d 383, 388, affd. 2 N.Y.2d 943). The object of the above article of the Insurance Law, and also of all other provisions of that statute, is to protect residents of this State in matters pertaining to their insurance rights and claims (cf. Insurance Law, § 10, Matter of Thacher v. United Constr. Workers-Pomeroy Co. Welfare Fund, 10 N.Y.2d 439, 444). The Vacation Plan herein does not involve insurance benefits to members of the M.E.B.A.: it does not involve insurance funding or self-insurance reserves and funding. The Plan involves a fund established by employers to pay the definite amounts due to employees, members of that union, as the vacation wages they might earn in a particular year for services rendered during that year. In our opinion, articles 6 and 20-A of the Labor Law have as their object protection to residents of this State of their rights to receive wages, including vacation wages from their employers or from funds set up by the employer for that purpose; the Insurance Law was not enacted to give New York wage earners protection in that connection. Furthermore, we note that it is uncontradicted that the eight trustees of the Vacation Plan, four of whom have been designated by the employers and four of whom have been designated by the union, have been adequately bonded. No claim has been made of any delinquency on their part since the plan was set up (Oct. 1, 1960). Rabin, Acting P.J., Hopkins, Munder, Martuscello and Brennan, JJ., concur. [ 59 Misc.2d 380.]