Menu
  • Home
  • Case Pages
    • 2024 – 2025 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
    • 2023 – 2024 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2022 – 2023 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2021 – 2022 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2020 – 2021 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
    • 2019 – 2020 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
      • June Session
    • Pending Cases
      • All Pending Cases
      • Fully Briefed
      • Not Fully Briefed
  • Roundups & Interviews
    • Experts Roundups
      • The Chief Judge Vacancy
      • Matter of Harkenrider v. Hochul
      • The Mortgage Acceleration Cases
      • Doe v. Bloomberg LP
      • CNH Diversified v. Cleveland Unlimited
    • News Roundups
    • Interviews
      • Hon. Leslie Stein (NYCA)
      • Hon. Eugene Fahey (NYCA)
  • NYCA Stats
    • 2023-2024 Term
    • 2022-2023 Term
    • 2021-2022 Term
    • 2021-2022 Midterm
    • 2020-2021 Term
    • 2019-2020 Term
    • 2018-2019 Term
  • Jurisdictional Letters
    • Finality
    • Constitutional Question
    • Dissents
    • Statute’s Validity
    • Stipulated Judgment
    • Necessarily Affects
    • Miscellaneous
      • Aggrieved Party
  • Resources
    • How An Appeal Gets To The New York Court of Appeals
    • Court Decisions
      • NYCA Decisions
      • Lower Court Decisions
      • Second Circuit Decisions
    • Legislative Resources
      • NY Statutes
      • NY Session Laws
      • NYCRR
      • NY Register
    • Research Resources
      • NY Bill Jackets
        • Bill Jackets (1995-present)
        • About older bill jackets.
      • NY Constitutional History
      • NYCA Briefs and Records
        • NYCA Briefs (2013-present)
        • About older NYCA briefs.
      • Other Primary Resources
        • NYLawz
        • NY State Library
        • Hein NY Legal Research Library (sub)
    • Practice Resources
      • NYCA Practice Rules
      • NYCA Civil Practice Outline
      • Certified Questions Handbook
      • NY Citation Rules
    • News and Commentary
      • NY Law Journal (sub)
      • NY Appellate Digest
      • NY Court Watcher
      • The CPLR Blog
      • NY Appeals
      • NY Focus
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Contact Us
TwentyEagle

Case Summary – Columbia Memorial Hospital v. Hinds

Posted on 2021-01-102021-01-10

The question in this case is whether an insured employee whose employer pays his insurance premiums is entitled to a cash payout owed to policyholders when the insurance company converts from a mutual insurance company to a stock insurance company.

Mutual insurance companies are owed by their policyholders. Stock insurance companies, by contrast, are owned by stockholders. Mutual insurance companies can convert to stock insurance companies but, if they do, they must buy the policyholders out of their interest in the company. (This process is called “demutualization.”) The payout is established by statute based on the amount of premium the policyholder paid and the amount of premium that the insurer received in total.

In 2016, Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC) followed this demutualization process. One of its policy-holders was Marcel Hinds, an obstetrics/gynecology physician employed by Columbia Memorial Hospital. Although Hinds was the policy-holder, the hospital paid the premiums and administered the policy as a benefit for Hinds while he worked at the hospital. So when MLMIC sought to pay out over $400,000 to Hinds as part of the demutualization, the hospital claimed that it was entitled to the funds. The hospital asked Hinds to assign his interest in the payout to the hospital, but Hinds refused and the hospital sued.

Supreme Court held that Hinds was entitled to the payout, and the Third Department affirmed. In reaching its decision, the Third Department declined to follow the First Department’s decision in Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v Title, 171 A.D.3d 465 (1st Dep’t 2019), and instead relied on its own earlier decision in Schoch v Lake Champlain OB-GYN, P.C., 184 A.D.3d 338 (2020), which held that a policyholder is entitled to a demutualization payout, regardless of who pays the policy premiums. Hinds could assign his interest to the hospital, the court observed, but he did not do so and was thus entitled to the payout in this case.

The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

By Phil on 2021-01-10.
Return to the case page.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com