From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strohschein v. Northern Assurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1988
136 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

January 19, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

This action involves an attempt by the plaintiffs to recover proceeds of insurance under a policy issued by the defendant. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, we find that the defendant satisfied its burden of establishing that the notice of cancellation of the plaintiffs' homeowner's insurance policy had been properly mailed to the plaintiffs on April 1, 1985. The cancellation of the policy based on nonpayment of premiums became effective on April 17, 1985, the day preceding the fire which allegedly caused substantial property damage to the plaintiffs' home.

To support its claim that the notice of cancellation had been mailed to the plaintiffs, the defendant submitted an affidavit which set forth the standard operating procedure utilized by the defendant to insure that notices of cancellation were properly mailed to its insureds. This procedure involved, inter alia, the verification by a post-office employee that the names and addresses of policyholders which were on a computer-generated list provided by the defendant actually appeared in the window of envelopes containing the notices of cancellation. The defendant additionally submitted a certificate of mailing which evidenced that the notice of cancellation addressed to the plaintiffs was actually received by the post office.

We conclude that the foregoing proof was sufficient to demonstrate that the notice of cancellation had been mailed to the plaintiffs (see, Insurance Law § 3425 [h]; Ramos v DeMond, 127 A.D.2d 751; Diaz v Great Am. Ins. Co., 109 A.D.2d 775; Sanders v Chautauqua County Patrons' Fire Relief Assn., 67 A.D.2d 1091). Accordingly, since the policy of insurance was effectively canceled prior to the date of the fire in issue, the defendant had no further obligations under its policy and was, therefore, properly awarded summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Strohschein v. Northern Assurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 19, 1988
136 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Strohschein v. Northern Assurance Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN B. STROHSCHEIN et al., Appellants, v. NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF…

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

Date published: Jan 19, 1988

Citations

136 A.D.2d 625 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Pardo v. Central Cooperative Insurance Co.

We affirm. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, we find that CCI satisfied its burden of proving that the…