# Employees' Liability Assurance Corp. of London v. Hayes Construction Co.

> New York Court of Appeals · July 9, 1926 · 243 N.Y. 261

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3607599

## Case

- **Full name:** The Employees’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Ltd., of London, England, Appellant, v. John L. Hayes Construction Co., Inc., Respondent
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 9, 1926
- **Citations:** 243 N.Y. 261; 153 N.E. 68; 1926 N.Y. LEXIS 749
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lehman
- **Judges:** Crane, Lehman
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3607599

## Opinion text

Lehman, J. (dissenting).
The defendant’s obligation to pay the adjusted rate concededly depends upon its written agreement. That agreement provides for
“
modification of rates in accordance with the rate manual and rating plans,” etc., but it expressly states that “ such modification, if any, to be expressed by indorsement
naming the effective date
” (italics are mine). It seems to me quite clear that the direction contained in section 31 of the Bating Plan that the
“ carrier
shall make such rates effective for the current policy as of its effective date ” cannot by its own force make the adjusted rates
“
effective for the current policy
as of its effective date
” when the carrier and the employer have by contract expressly provided that the
“ effective date
” of any modification must be expressed by indorsement
naming
such date.
The judgments should be affirmed.
Cardozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ., concur with Crane, J.; Lehman, J., dissents in memorandum, in which His cock, Ch. J., and McLaughlin, J., concur.
Judgment accordingly.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3607599. Public record. Not legal advice.