NEIL A. GOLDMAN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
ALLEN S. FRANCO et al., Appellants,
v.
THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondent.
MICHAEL KATZ, Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN MAYFLOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued October 17, 2005.
Decided November 21, 2005.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, New York City (Ira A. Schochet, Joel H. Bernstein and Stacey Fishbein of counsel), Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Conshohocken, Pennsylvania (Mark S. Goldman and Brent T. Jordan of counsel), and Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, LLC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (David H. Weinstein of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action.
Baker & McKenzie, San Francisco, California, New York City (Christopher Van Gundy and Mark R. Winston of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, New York City (Ira A. Schochet, Joel H. Bernstein, Louis Gottlieb and Stacey Fishbein of counsel), and Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C., White Plains (Richard Bemporad and Vincent Briganti of counsel), for appellants in the second above-entitled action.
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, New York City (Thomas J. Dougherty of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled action.
Wechsler Harwood LLP, New York City (William R. Weinstein and Robert I. Harwood of counsel), for appellant in the third above-entitled action.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, New York City (Reid L.Ashinoff, Sandra D. Hauser and Michael S. Gugig of counsel), for respondent in the third above-entitled action.
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and R.S. SMITH concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
OPINION OF THE COURT
G.B. SMITH, J.
The primary issue in each of these cases is whether there is a breach of an insurance contract when a policy date is set prior to an effective date and the insured, in the first year of the policy, must pay for days that are not covered. We hold that the insurers' CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) motions to dismiss the complaints were properly granted, and we affirm the orders of the Appellate Division.
Facts
...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
