You are here: / / Delay in Notification Justified Refusal to Defend and Indemnify

Delay in Notification Justified Refusal to Defend and Indemnify

The Second Department determined the failure of one insurance company, Fage, to notify another insurance company, Utica, of an automobile accident until 2 ½ years after the accident justified Utica’s refusal to defend and indemnify Fage under the commercial liability umbrella policy issued by Utica to Fage:

The umbrella policy requires Fage to notify Utica of an occurrence or suit as soon as practicable. Such a requirement is a condition precedent to coverage … . Where an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given as soon as practicable, notice must be given within a reasonable time in view of all of the circumstances … . Absent a valid excuse, the failure to satisfy the notice requirement of an insurance policy vitiates coverage … .

Here, no notice was given to Utica by Fage until more than 2½ years after the subject accident and more than 2 years after the underlying action was commenced. This was an unreasonable delay … . Fage has provided no evidence of circumstances, such as lack of knowledge of the accident or a reasonable belief in nonliability, to excuse its delay … . Although Fage claims that its counsel was not aware of the existence of the umbrella policy until October 2009, such unawareness is not a valid excuse for the failure to provide Utica with timely notice … .  Ortiz v Fage USA Corp, 2012 NY Slip Op 02229, 2012-00469, Index Nos 22944/07, 23217/10, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

 

You might also like
THE PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME; APPEAL HEARD DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ISSUE BY MOVING TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT). ​
REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS OF NON-TESTIFYING WITNESSES IN A CRIMINAL MATTER PROPERLY DENIED.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SUCH THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE LABOR LAW APPLY IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANT AGREED TO FIX PLAINTIFF’S CAR IN RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIXING THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S REPAIR SHOP (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE THE NORMAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HORSEBACK RIDING WERE NOT UNREASONABLY INCREASED BY THE RIDING INSTRUCTOR REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THEREBY DEPRIVING PLAINTIFF OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD (SECOND DEPT).
WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO INTEREST ON A LATE LUMP SUM PAYMENT, HUSBAND NOT ENTITLED TO RECOUP OVERPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Demonstrate When Plaintiff Should Have First Become Aware of Fraudulent Conveyance Precluded Dismissal on Statute of Limitations Grounds​
28-Hours Between Arrest and Arraignment Okay

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Demonstrating Documents Were Material Prepared in Anticipation... Action Under Labor Law Based On Injury On a Ship in Dry-Dock Not Preempted by...