Filed Date: 12/21/2001
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover premiums allegedly due under a workers’ compensation policy issued by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to a “notice” that was sent with the subject policy. We disagree. The policy provides that the premium basis includes “all * * * persons engaged in work that could make us liable,” while the notice provides that “premium” will be charged under the policy issued by plaintiff for all subcontractors without proof of workers’ compensation coverage, regardless of whether those subcontractors are exempt from liability for coverage pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 56. Workers’ Compensation Law § 56 exempts from liability for coverage self-employed persons without employees, and thus the notice conflicts with
Although plaintiff met its initial burden on the motion by establishing that there were subcontractors for which no workers compensation coverage was provided, defendant raised an issue of fact whether certain workers were self-employed subcontractors with no employees, and thus need not be provided coverage under the policy at issue pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 56 (see generally, Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v Bromley, 4 Misc 2d 702). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Herkimer County, Kirk, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Pine, J. P., Scudder, Burns, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.