Medical Malpractice Insurance v. Cuomo
Cases that cite this one
56 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Albert (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- 2138747 Ontario, Inc. v. Samsung C&T Corp. (N.Y. 2018)
- 24 Fifth Owners, Inc. v. Sirius America Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- PENN MILLERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. C.W. COLD STORAGE, INC. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- SAGE, MERLIN G., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Sage (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Sage (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Tower Insurance v. Classon Heights, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- People v. McPherson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Watkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Magen v. Hartford Fire Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- People v. Washington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. Montanez (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Worth Construction Co. v. Admiral Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance v. Genesee Valley Improvement Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Pendill v. Furry Paws, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Doe Fund, Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Weeks (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Brownstone Partners/AF&F, LLC v. A. Aleem Constr., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Precision Electro Minerals Co. v. Dryden Mutual Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- DiGuglielmo v. Travelers Property Casualty (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Public Service Mutual Insurance v. Harlen Housing Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Manzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
- Paramount Insurance v. Rosedale Gardens, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with *653 costs, the preliminary injunction vacated, defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted, and sections 11 and 40 of chapter 266 of the Laws of 1986 declared constitutional. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
We have recently determined that the Legislature may require the Medical Malpractice Insurance Association (MMIA) to operate at a loss on a temporary or even continual basis in order to promote affordable medical malpractice coverage (Matter of Medical Malpractice Ins. Assn. v Superintendent of Ins., 72 NY2d 753, 766). In so holding, we rejected the argument that section 40 of the Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1986 (Reform Act) is confiscatory as to MMIA because it authorizes the Superintendent of Insurance to consider future surcharges on insurance premiums in fixing present insurance rates and thus contemplates that MMIA may be required to operate at a deficit. Likewise here, there is no constitutional infirmity in section 11 of the Reform Act insofar as it directs MMIA to refund stabilization reserve fund charges collected on excess policies issued during the 1985-1986 policy year. As a creature of statute, MMIA had no vested property interest in those charges and it was within the Legislature’s prerogative to direct a refund in an effort to reduce over-all health care costs (see, Matter of Medical Malpractice Ins. Assn. v Superintendent of Ins., 72 NY2d, at 766, supra). Nor can MMIA state any cognizable claim for the impairment of contract rights since the stabilization reserve fund charge on excess insurance policies was imposed by statute and not as the result of any bargaining between MMIA and its insureds.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.