HomeMy WebLinkAbout2092 thp ground that Dr. Sullivan had no Professiona~ Liability Insurance
coverage with the Defendant to cover this incident which occurred in
the Month of January 1972. This_suit for Declaratory Judgment was
thereafter filed by Dr. Sullivan against The Employers' Fire Insurance
Company.
The Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to coverage in
spite of his nonpayment of premium upon the following theories: First,
he argues t~at once the insurance company assumed the risk, the insured
became liable~for the premium and since an action could be maintained
i
against the insured for the unpaid premium, the insurance company's
remedy for-the unpaid premium is an action for debt or a set off.
Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that a loss while the policy is in
force maturea his rights under the policy. He contends that when the
alleged malpsactice occurred in January of 1972, the policy was in
force and therefore the liability of the Defendant was fixed at that
point and the subsequent nonpayment of the premium could not have
caused a forfeiture of tN.e coverage.
On the other hand, the Defendant contends that where an insurance
i
~ policy or endorsement expressly provides that the coverage afforded
shall be null and void upon the nonpayment of a premium, the provision
is valid and vitiates coverag~ upon the insured's failure to pay the
a premium as required.
If the endorsement extending coverage an additional 30 days
had not contained the specific provision that "the extension of cover-
age hereunder afforded shall be null and void unless the premium charged
shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this endorsement was
issued", the Court would be inclined to accept the Plaintiff's argu-
ments. Hawever, the particular provision of the endorsement referred
to above factually ~istinguishes this case from the various authorities
cited by the Plaintiff in support of his position. ,
~31-~a$~
- 3 -
- - - _ - - _
~ -
~J3
. s _ . .