Preview
KEIDEL, WELDON & CUNNINGHAM, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
925 Westchester Avenue, Suite 400
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 948‐7000
Telefax: (914) 948‐7010 (Not for Service)
http://www.kwcllp.com
September 10, 2020
Via NYSCEF
Hon. Carl Landicino, J.S.C.
Supreme Court of the State of New York
County of Kings
360 Adams Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Re: Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company v. Eastern Fruit & Vegetables Inc.
Index No.: 510798/2018
Motion Sequence: 04
Dear Justice Landicino:
We represent Plaintiff, Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company. We write to request that the
Court accept nunc pro tunc the enclosed affidavit of Suzanne Parrish1 with Certificate of
Conformity or that the Court disregard the absence of such Certificate of Conformity pursuant to
CPLR 2001. As discussed more fully in the memorandum of law in reply with respect to Atlantic
Casualty’s cross-motion, the Second Department has recognized that the failure to include a
Certificate of Conformity is a technical issue which should not prevent an affidavit from being
considered, and which a party may correct nunc pro tunc.
In light of the above, it is respectfully requested that the Court consider Ms. Parrish’s
affidavit, as the authentication of the notarization has now been secured.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully yours,
Debra M. Krebs
cc: L. Blake Morris, Esq.
Via Email and NYSCEF
1
Defendant’s reply argues that the Court should disregard the affidavits of Ms. Parrish as well as Ms. Robinson based
upon a claimed lack of a Certificate of Conformity. Such certificate is clearly not required with respect to an in-state
affidavit such as Ms. Robinson’s. As a result, we do not address that affidavit herein.
WHITE PLAINS, NY ● NEW YORK, NY ● SYRACUSE, NY ● WILTON, CT
WARWICK, RI ● FAIR LAWN, NJ ● WYNCOTE, PA ● WILLISTON, VT ● NAPLES, FL
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE Index No.: 510798/2018
COMPANY,
Hon. Ingrid Joseph, J.S.C.
Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT OF SUZANNE
v. PARRISH
EASTERN FRUIT & VEGETABLES INC.
Defendant.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA )
SS:
COUNTY OF WAYNE )
SUZANNE PARRISH, being duly sown, deposes and states:
1. I am the premium audit manager for Plaintiff, Atlantic Casualty Insurance
Company ("Atlantic") in the above matter. As such, and based upon my review of the
documents referenced herein, I am fully familiar with the facts set forth in this affidavit.
A. Background Information
2. Atlantic is a corporation which was incorporated in the State of North Carolina in
October 1983. A true and accurate copy of Atlantic's certificate of incorporation is attached as
Exhibit 1. It is an insurance carrier which provides coverage on an admitted basis in itshome
state, North Carolina, and on a non-admitted basis in the remaining states, including New York.
3. Atlantic has been an eligible surplus lines insurer in New York since
October 24, 2002.
4. Atlantic does not own any property in the State of New York.
5. Atlantic does not maintain any bank accounts in the State of New York.
6. Atlantic does not solicit any business from insureds in the State of New York.
7. Atlantic does not maintain any offices or storefronts in the State of New York.
1
8. Atlantic does not have any telephone listing in the State of New York or any New
York telephone number.
9. Atlantic does not have any employees placing or selling coverage in the State of
New York.
10. Although Atlantic provides insurance coverage to New York residents under
surplus lines insurance policies, Atlantic does not sell those policies to such insureds. Those
policies are sold exclusively through surplus lines insurance brokers who handle all negotiations
with the retailbroker.
B. The Subject Policies
11. As relevant to this lawsuit, Atlantic is the insurance carrier on two insurance
policies issued to Eastern Fruit.
12. Policy number L146001424-1 (the "2016 Policy") was issued to Eastern Fruit
with effective dates from April 17, 2016 to April 17, 2017. That policy remained in force for the
full policy period.
2.1
13. A true and accurate copy of the 2016 Policy is attached as Exhibit That
policy was placed through a surplus lines broker, Morstan General Agency, Inc. ("Morstan").
See, Exhibit 2 at ACIC 0004.
14. A pedestrian was allegedly injured on August 24, 2016 in front of the store
occupied Defendant, as a result of which a claim was reported under the 2016 Policy.
by
Atlantic made payment under the 2016 to resolve that claim, which is now closed.
Policy
Despite requests Defendant has failed to its deductible associated with that
by Atlantic, pay
claim.
1 The copies of thePolicies attached to thisaffidavitwere provided tous Morstan, who has added numbering to
by
"ACIC"
the bottom of each page for ease of reference. Our counsel has also added page numbers with the prefix to
allof thedocuments to thePolicieswhich are attached to thisaffidavit.
relating
2
15. Policy number L146001424-2 (the "2017 Policy") was issued to Eastern Fruit
with effective dates from April 17, 2017 to April 17, 2018. The 2017 Policy was cancelled
effective October 3, 2017. (The 2016 Policy and the 2017 Policy are collectively referred to as
the "Policies").
16. A true and accurate copy of the 2017 Policy is attached as Exhibit 3. This policy
Morstan.2
was also placed through S_ee, Exhibit 3 at ACIC 0066. A true and accurate copy of
the cancellation endorsement is attached as Exhibit 4.
17. One of Defendant's customer's was allegedly injured on October 1, 2016, as a
result of which a claim was made under the 2017 Policy. Atlantic handled that claim and was
able to resolve itwithout the need for any payment Defendant.
by
C. Morstan's Relationship to Atlantic
18. It ismy understanding that surplus lines brokers are permitted under the Insurance
Law to have binding authority agreements with surplus lines insurers.
19. At the time the subject insurance policies were issued, Morstan had a binding
authority agreement with Atlantic which authorized Morstan (subject to certain guidelines) to
bind and issue surplus lines policies under which Atlantic would provide coverage.
20. Although Atlantic provides Morstan with guidelines regarding what risks Atlantic
will cover and what documents Atlantic requires from the insured in order to agree to provide
such coverage (i.e. signed applications), Atlantic has no authority to, and does not, control
manner in which Morstan conducts its business, including the manner in which it complies with
any insurance laws or regulations.
2 that Morstan was sold to Hull & Co. in mid-2016. At that Morstan continued its
Itis my understanding time,
business as a surplus linesbroker. is that then began placing coverage as Morstan General
My understanding they
Agency, a division of Hull & Co. However, we continued to dealwith thesame people at Morstan and, as a result,
itisour understanding these areessentially the same company.
3
Atlantic's letterhead or logo as itsown.
21. Morstan does not have authority to use
Morstan as its agent with the New York State
22. Atlantic has never designated
nor submitted paperwork with the DFS in an
Department of Financial Services (the "DFS") any
effort to do so.
23. Morstan and Atlantic do not have any common ownership.
Casualty
that Morstan places coverage with various insurance
24. It is my understanding
surplus lines carriers - it does not place coverage with
carriers, including other exclusively
Atlantic.
25. Morstan negotiated and bound coverage under the subject Policies and then issued
each of the physical Policies.
26. Atlantic did not have communications with either Eastern Fruit or Eastern
any
Fruit's broker, Richard D. Andreoli regarding the purchase of these Policies.
27. Based upon my review of the file materials relating to the insurance policies at
issue in this lawsuit, any communications between Atlantic and Morstan were done through
email and/or regular mail, as is typical with all of our policies.
28. Atlantic did not have any employees in New York involved in placing, procuring
or selling the Policies.
D. Premiums Owed by Defendant
29. The premium charged at the beginning of each policy period is an estimated
premium which is calculated based upon the insured's gross eamings. In the present situation,
the insured reported on its application that it anticipated eamings of $250,000. A true and
accurate copy of that application is attached as Exhibit 5 (the anticipated earnings are shown as
"exposure"
on page ACIC 0132). As a result, this is the amount of earnings which was used to
4
first period, the base
Policies. In particular, during the policy
calculate the premium on both
surplus lines tax and surplus lines
to be $6,956.00. After adding the
premium was calculated
was $7,418.94. Eastern paid this premium.
fee, the total premium
stamping
April 2017. In its application dated
30. The was renewed effective 17,
policy
Defendant once again reported its anticipated earnings as $250,000. A true and
April 17, 2017,
attached as Exhibit 6 (the anticipated earnings are
accurate of the 2017 application is
copy
rate had increased the base premium was
shown on page ACIC 0139). Because the slightly,
total premium of $7,830.87 after taxes and fees. Eastern paid this
calculated as $7,450.00 for a
premium.
31. Since the premium charged at the of the period is based upon an
beginning policy
estimation of the earnings which the insured anticipates they will earn during the policy period,
endorsement entitled "Premium Audit or Inspection - Deposit
each of the policies contains an
- Audits"
Premium Cancellation in the Event of Unpaid Premium which states that:
[a]t the close of each audit period, or after expiration or cancellation of this
policy, or during the policy term, we may, at our discretion, compute the policy
premium based on your actual records, a telephone inspection or survey, physical
self-audit * * *
inspection or survey, or an audit conducted of your actual records.
Additional premium may be generated by additional exposure(s) including but not
limited to increases basis. * * *
in the rating
If additional premium generated by the audit is not paid promptly the policy may
be cancelled at our discretion. If additional audit premium is due on an expired
policy, the renewed policy may be cancelled for non-payment of premium.
Exhibit 2 at ACIC 0039; Exhibit 3 at ACIC 0101.
32. On or about June 2, 2017 (approximately two months after expiration of the 2016
Policy) Overland Solutions conducted an audit of Defendant's earnings and reported that
5
Defendant's actual earnings for the 2016 - 2017 period were $2,775,356 - more than 11
policy
times higher than the anticipated earnings used to calculate the insured's estimated premium.
33. In light of this, it was determined that, before taxes and fees, the insured's
premium should have been $74,313.00 (i.e.the premium that would have been charged based
upon earnings of $2,775,356.00). Since the insured had only been previously charged $6,956.00
in premium (before taxes and fees), this meant the insured owed an additional premium of
$67,357.00 (not including taxes and fees). After adding in the surplus lines tax and stamping fee
owed on the additional premium, the total amount due from the insured was $69,903.09.
34. On July 18, 2017 an amendatory endorsement was issued reflecting the additional
premium of $67,357.00, plus state tax in the amount of $2,424.85, plus a surplus lines stamping
fee in the amount of $121.24. A true and accurate copy of that endorsement is attached as
Exhibit 7.
35. Since itwas clear that the estimated earnings of $250,000 on the 2017 Policy was
going to be significantly low, Defendant's premiums for the 2017 Policy were recalculated based
upon the earnings shown during the audit. Based upon those calculations, the total premium
should have been $66,280.00 (not including taxes and fees). Since the original premium was
listed as $7,450.00, an endorsement was issued seeking an additional $58,830.00. A true and
accurate copy of that endorsement is attached as Exhibit 8.
36. Since several months had passed and Atlantic had not received payment of the
additional premium owed in connection with the 2016 Policy, Atlantic wrote a letter dated
September 18, 2017 to Defendant at itsaddress listed on the 2016 Policy, requesting payment. A
true and accurate of that letter is attached as Fxhibit 9. This letter was sent from Atlantic's
copy
North Carolina office.
6
37. Another letterwas sent todanda=* on October 2017 again payment
6, requesting
of the ±dditic-re!$69,903.09 owed in connection with the 2016 Policy. A trueand accurate copy
of that letteris attached as Exhibit 10. 7his letter was sent from Atlantic's North Carolina
ofHee.
38. When Atlantic had stillnot received payment of the idditP-a-1 premium owed on
either policy, the 2017 Policy was cancelled for non-paymcñt of premin effective
October 3, 2017.
39. Since Atlantic provided coverage under the 2017 Policy from April 17, 2017 to
October 3. 2017, iteamed premiu-a during that period. The premiums for the period from
October 3. 2017 to April 17, 2018 were not earned. Since the fullpolicy premium (without taxes
and fees) was $66,280.00, and since Atlantic provided coverage for 169 days, the full mount
Atlantic should have eamed (not kckdiñg taxes and fees) is $30,688.55. Since Dafendant had
already paid S7,450.00, the balance requ=ted in theCe p with respect to the 2017 Policy is
$23,238.
Suzanne Parrish
Swo to be re m this
y f , 2020
N tary ublic
7
G.S. § 10B-43 NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE FOR AN OATH OR
AFFIRMATION
(y\ n County, North Carolina
Signed and sworn to before me this day by 07-(1vW (1 22(¿ \*y
Name ofprincipal
Date: )ûl._Q
(Official Seal)
Official Signatt re of Notary
JUDITH PARKER
Notary Public O (2. , NotaryPublic
North Carolin a Notary's printed or typeÏname
We y n e Co unty
-
My commission expires: \ \ \
Q f)
I signed thisnotarial certificate on A 01( ) according to theemergency video notarization
Date
requirements contained in G.S. 10B-25.
NotaryPubliclocation during video notarization: r\ R. County
Stated physical location of principal during video notarization: \ L p County
p
OPTIONAL
This certificate
is attachedtoa Àc cÊ3,7nong ng gnedby 7anno OLY £6
Titl pe of Document Name of PrincipalSigner(s)
on 4 \ c U , andincludes ages.
Date # of pages
CERT4FICATE OF CONFORMITY
I, Â\ 3 t ½/4 (YJD an attorney at law admitted to practice in the State of North
Carolina, am itillyacquainted with the laws of the State of North Carolina pertaining to the
requiremeñts needed foroaths and affirmations to be taken before Notary Publics in the State of
North Carolina.
I do hereby certify that I am duly qualified to make this certificate of conformity. I am
f==m== with through which the the affidavit
the process oath and affirmation in accompanying
were taken by Po\ce / , anotary public in the State of North Carolina, and
Jwoq
hereby certify that the same fully and conforms with the maññêr prescribed by the
completely
laws of the State of North Carolina and, more specifically, conforms to the laws thereof in all
respects.
I have hereunto set my signature, on this day, September1, 2020.
Print Name: ÅA Y \ SS
Attorney at Law
State of North Carolina
N.C. State Bar No.
Preview
KEIDEL, WELDON & CUNNINGHAM, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 925 Westchester Avenue, Suite 400 White Plains, NY 10604 Telephone: (914) 948‐7000 Telefax: (914) 948‐7010 (Not for Service) http://www.kwcllp.com September 10, 2020 Via NYSCEF Hon. Carl Landicino, J.S.C. Supreme Court of the State of New York County of Kings 360 Adams Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Re: Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company v. Eastern Fruit & Vegetables Inc. Index No.: 510798/2018 Motion Sequence: 04 Dear Justice Landicino: We represent Plaintiff, Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company. We write to request that the Court accept nunc pro tunc the enclosed affidavit of Suzanne Parrish1 with Certificate of Conformity or that the Court disregard the absence of such Certificate of Conformity pursuant to CPLR 2001. As discussed more fully in the memorandum of law in reply with respect to Atlantic Casualty’s cross-motion, the Second Department has recognized that the failure to include a Certificate of Conformity is a technical issue which should not prevent an affidavit from being considered, and which a party may correct nunc pro tunc. In light of the above, it is respectfully requested that the Court consider Ms. Parrish’s affidavit, as the authentication of the notarization has now been secured. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully yours, Debra M. Krebs cc: L. Blake Morris, Esq. Via Email and NYSCEF 1 Defendant’s reply argues that the Court should disregard the affidavits of Ms. Parrish as well as Ms. Robinson based upon a claimed lack of a Certificate of Conformity. Such certificate is clearly not required with respect to an in-state affidavit such as Ms. Robinson’s. As a result, we do not address that affidavit herein. WHITE PLAINS, NY ● NEW YORK, NY ● SYRACUSE, NY ● WILTON, CT WARWICK, RI ● FAIR LAWN, NJ ● WYNCOTE, PA ● WILLISTON, VT ● NAPLES, FL SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ATLANTIC CASUALTY INSURANCE Index No.: 510798/2018 COMPANY, Hon. Ingrid Joseph, J.S.C. Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF SUZANNE v. PARRISH EASTERN FRUIT & VEGETABLES INC. Defendant. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) SS: COUNTY OF WAYNE ) SUZANNE PARRISH, being duly sown, deposes and states: 1. I am the premium audit manager for Plaintiff, Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company ("Atlantic") in the above matter. As such, and based upon my review of the documents referenced herein, I am fully familiar with the facts set forth in this affidavit. A. Background Information 2. Atlantic is a corporation which was incorporated in the State of North Carolina in October 1983. A true and accurate copy of Atlantic's certificate of incorporation is attached as Exhibit 1. It is an insurance carrier which provides coverage on an admitted basis in itshome state, North Carolina, and on a non-admitted basis in the remaining states, including New York. 3. Atlantic has been an eligible surplus lines insurer in New York since October 24, 2002. 4. Atlantic does not own any property in the State of New York. 5. Atlantic does not maintain any bank accounts in the State of New York. 6. Atlantic does not solicit any business from insureds in the State of New York. 7. Atlantic does not maintain any offices or storefronts in the State of New York. 1 8. Atlantic does not have any telephone listing in the State of New York or any New York telephone number. 9. Atlantic does not have any employees placing or selling coverage in the State of New York. 10. Although Atlantic provides insurance coverage to New York residents under surplus lines insurance policies, Atlantic does not sell those policies to such insureds. Those policies are sold exclusively through surplus lines insurance brokers who handle all negotiations with the retailbroker. B. The Subject Policies 11. As relevant to this lawsuit, Atlantic is the insurance carrier on two insurance policies issued to Eastern Fruit. 12. Policy number L146001424-1 (the "2016 Policy") was issued to Eastern Fruit with effective dates from April 17, 2016 to April 17, 2017. That policy remained in force for the full policy period. 2.1 13. A true and accurate copy of the 2016 Policy is attached as Exhibit That policy was placed through a surplus lines broker, Morstan General Agency, Inc. ("Morstan"). See, Exhibit 2 at ACIC 0004. 14. A pedestrian was allegedly injured on August 24, 2016 in front of the store occupied Defendant, as a result of which a claim was reported under the 2016 Policy. by Atlantic made payment under the 2016 to resolve that claim, which is now closed. Policy Despite requests Defendant has failed to its deductible associated with that by Atlantic, pay claim. 1 The copies of thePolicies attached to thisaffidavitwere provided tous Morstan, who has added numbering to by "ACIC" the bottom of each page for ease of reference. Our counsel has also added page numbers with the prefix to allof thedocuments to thePolicieswhich are attached to thisaffidavit. relating 2 15. Policy number L146001424-2 (the "2017 Policy") was issued to Eastern Fruit with effective dates from April 17, 2017 to April 17, 2018. The 2017 Policy was cancelled effective October 3, 2017. (The 2016 Policy and the 2017 Policy are collectively referred to as the "Policies"). 16. A true and accurate copy of the 2017 Policy is attached as Exhibit 3. This policy Morstan.2 was also placed through S_ee, Exhibit 3 at ACIC 0066. A true and accurate copy of the cancellation endorsement is attached as Exhibit 4. 17. One of Defendant's customer's was allegedly injured on October 1, 2016, as a result of which a claim was made under the 2017 Policy. Atlantic handled that claim and was able to resolve itwithout the need for any payment Defendant. by C. Morstan's Relationship to Atlantic 18. It ismy understanding that surplus lines brokers are permitted under the Insurance Law to have binding authority agreements with surplus lines insurers. 19. At the time the subject insurance policies were issued, Morstan had a binding authority agreement with Atlantic which authorized Morstan (subject to certain guidelines) to bind and issue surplus lines policies under which Atlantic would provide coverage. 20. Although Atlantic provides Morstan with guidelines regarding what risks Atlantic will cover and what documents Atlantic requires from the insured in order to agree to provide such coverage (i.e. signed applications), Atlantic has no authority to, and does not, control manner in which Morstan conducts its business, including the manner in which it complies with any insurance laws or regulations. 2 that Morstan was sold to Hull & Co. in mid-2016. At that Morstan continued its Itis my understanding time, business as a surplus linesbroker. is that then began placing coverage as Morstan General My understanding they Agency, a division of Hull & Co. However, we continued to dealwith thesame people at Morstan and, as a result, itisour understanding these areessentially the same company. 3 Atlantic's letterhead or logo as itsown. 21. Morstan does not have authority to use Morstan as its agent with the New York State 22. Atlantic has never designated nor submitted paperwork with the DFS in an Department of Financial Services (the "DFS") any effort to do so. 23. Morstan and Atlantic do not have any common ownership. Casualty that Morstan places coverage with various insurance 24. It is my understanding surplus lines carriers - it does not place coverage with carriers, including other exclusively Atlantic. 25. Morstan negotiated and bound coverage under the subject Policies and then issued each of the physical Policies. 26. Atlantic did not have communications with either Eastern Fruit or Eastern any Fruit's broker, Richard D. Andreoli regarding the purchase of these Policies. 27. Based upon my review of the file materials relating to the insurance policies at issue in this lawsuit, any communications between Atlantic and Morstan were done through email and/or regular mail, as is typical with all of our policies. 28. Atlantic did not have any employees in New York involved in placing, procuring or selling the Policies. D. Premiums Owed by Defendant 29. The premium charged at the beginning of each policy period is an estimated premium which is calculated based upon the insured's gross eamings. In the present situation, the insured reported on its application that it anticipated eamings of $250,000. A true and accurate copy of that application is attached as Exhibit 5 (the anticipated earnings are shown as "exposure" on page ACIC 0132). As a result, this is the amount of earnings which was used to 4 first period, the base Policies. In particular, during the policy calculate the premium on both surplus lines tax and surplus lines to be $6,956.00. After adding the premium was calculated was $7,418.94. Eastern paid this premium. fee, the total premium stamping April 2017. In its application dated 30. The was renewed effective 17, policy Defendant once again reported its anticipated earnings as $250,000. A true and April 17, 2017, attached as Exhibit 6 (the anticipated earnings are accurate of the 2017 application is copy rate had increased the base premium was shown on page ACIC 0139). Because the slightly, total premium of $7,830.87 after taxes and fees. Eastern paid this calculated as $7,450.00 for a premium. 31. Since the premium charged at the of the period is based upon an beginning policy estimation of the earnings which the insured anticipates they will earn during the policy period, endorsement entitled "Premium Audit or Inspection - Deposit each of the policies contains an - Audits" Premium Cancellation in the Event of Unpaid Premium which states that: [a]t the close of each audit period, or after expiration or cancellation of this policy, or during the policy term, we may, at our discretion, compute the policy premium based on your actual records, a telephone inspection or survey, physical self-audit * * * inspection or survey, or an audit conducted of your actual records. Additional premium may be generated by additional exposure(s) including but not limited to increases basis. * * * in the rating If additional premium generated by the audit is not paid promptly the policy may be cancelled at our discretion. If additional audit premium is due on an expired policy, the renewed policy may be cancelled for non-payment of premium. Exhibit 2 at ACIC 0039; Exhibit 3 at ACIC 0101. 32. On or about June 2, 2017 (approximately two months after expiration of the 2016 Policy) Overland Solutions conducted an audit of Defendant's earnings and reported that 5 Defendant's actual earnings for the 2016 - 2017 period were $2,775,356 - more than 11 policy times higher than the anticipated earnings used to calculate the insured's estimated premium. 33. In light of this, it was determined that, before taxes and fees, the insured's premium should have been $74,313.00 (i.e.the premium that would have been charged based upon earnings of $2,775,356.00). Since the insured had only been previously charged $6,956.00 in premium (before taxes and fees), this meant the insured owed an additional premium of $67,357.00 (not including taxes and fees). After adding in the surplus lines tax and stamping fee owed on the additional premium, the total amount due from the insured was $69,903.09. 34. On July 18, 2017 an amendatory endorsement was issued reflecting the additional premium of $67,357.00, plus state tax in the amount of $2,424.85, plus a surplus lines stamping fee in the amount of $121.24. A true and accurate copy of that endorsement is attached as Exhibit 7. 35. Since itwas clear that the estimated earnings of $250,000 on the 2017 Policy was going to be significantly low, Defendant's premiums for the 2017 Policy were recalculated based upon the earnings shown during the audit. Based upon those calculations, the total premium should have been $66,280.00 (not including taxes and fees). Since the original premium was listed as $7,450.00, an endorsement was issued seeking an additional $58,830.00. A true and accurate copy of that endorsement is attached as Exhibit 8. 36. Since several months had passed and Atlantic had not received payment of the additional premium owed in connection with the 2016 Policy, Atlantic wrote a letter dated September 18, 2017 to Defendant at itsaddress listed on the 2016 Policy, requesting payment. A true and accurate of that letter is attached as Fxhibit 9. This letter was sent from Atlantic's copy North Carolina office. 6 37. Another letterwas sent todanda=* on October 2017 again payment 6, requesting of the ±dditic-re!$69,903.09 owed in connection with the 2016 Policy. A trueand accurate copy of that letteris attached as Exhibit 10. 7his letter was sent from Atlantic's North Carolina ofHee. 38. When Atlantic had stillnot received payment of the idditP-a-1 premium owed on either policy, the 2017 Policy was cancelled for non-paymcñt of premin effective October 3, 2017. 39. Since Atlantic provided coverage under the 2017 Policy from April 17, 2017 to October 3. 2017, iteamed premiu-a during that period. The premiums for the period from October 3. 2017 to April 17, 2018 were not earned. Since the fullpolicy premium (without taxes and fees) was $66,280.00, and since Atlantic provided coverage for 169 days, the full mount Atlantic should have eamed (not kckdiñg taxes and fees) is $30,688.55. Since Dafendant had already paid S7,450.00, the balance requ=ted in theCe p with respect to the 2017 Policy is $23,238. Suzanne Parrish Swo to be re m this y f , 2020 N tary ublic 7 G.S. § 10B-43 NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE FOR AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION (y\ n County, North Carolina Signed and sworn to before me this day by 07-(1vW (1 22(¿ \*y Name ofprincipal Date: )ûl._Q (Official Seal) Official Signatt re of Notary JUDITH PARKER Notary Public O (2. , NotaryPublic North Carolin a Notary's printed or typeÏname We y n e Co unty - My commission expires: \ \ \ Q f) I signed thisnotarial certificate on A 01( ) according to theemergency video notarization Date requirements contained in G.S. 10B-25. NotaryPubliclocation during video notarization: r\ R. County Stated physical location of principal during video notarization: \ L p County p OPTIONAL This certificate is attachedtoa Àc cÊ3,7nong ng gnedby 7anno OLY £6 Titl pe of Document Name of PrincipalSigner(s) on 4 \ c U , andincludes ages. Date # of pages CERT4FICATE OF CONFORMITY I, Â\ 3 t ½/4 (YJD an attorney at law admitted to practice in the State of North Carolina, am itillyacquainted with the laws of the State of North Carolina pertaining to the requiremeñts needed foroaths and affirmations to be taken before Notary Publics in the State of North Carolina. I do hereby certify that I am duly qualified to make this certificate of conformity. I am f==m== with through which the the affidavit the process oath and affirmation in accompanying were taken by Po\ce / , anotary public in the State of North Carolina, and Jwoq hereby certify that the same fully and conforms with the maññêr prescribed by the completely laws of the State of North Carolina and, more specifically, conforms to the laws thereof in all respects. I have hereunto set my signature, on this day, September1, 2020. Print Name: ÅA Y \ SS Attorney at Law State of North Carolina N.C. State Bar No.