You are here: / / Injured Party, as Well as the Insured Defendant, Has a Duty to Inform Insured’s C...

Injured Party, as Well as the Insured Defendant, Has a Duty to Inform Insured’s Carrier of Incident; Failure of Timely Notice by Both the Insured and the Injured Party Allowed Carrier to Disclaim

In this case the insurer [Tower] disclaimed coverage because it was not given notice of the claim.  The Second Department determined that both the insured [Xu] and the injured party [Gomez] had a duty to inform the carrier of the incident:

The question before us is whether Tower may be required to afford coverage to its defaulting insured (Xu) for the benefit of the injured party (Gomez) pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420(a)(3). Gomez is not accountable, of course, for Xu’s failure to provide notice to Tower during the period of nearly a year and a half  … . Still, even though “[i]n determining the reasonableness of an injured party’s notice, the notice required is measured less rigidly than that required of the insureds” …, some level of diligence was required of Gomez, as the dissent reluctantly concedes, once his counsel, upon receipt of the certificate evidencing that coverage had been renewed five months after the incident, was put on notice of the likelihood (even if not a certainty) that Xu had been covered by a Tower policy at the time of the incident (see Kalthoff v Arrowood Indem. Co., 95 AD3d 1413, 1415 [3d Dept 2012] [where the insured has failed to comply with the notice conditions of the policy, “the injured party bears the burden of demonstrating that it made reasonable efforts to identify the insurer and provide it with prompt notice”] …). Tower Ins Co of NY v Rong Rong Sun, 2013 NY Slip Op 02645, 8777, 108391/10, 1st Dept, 4-18-13

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO UPDATE THE ADDRESS ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV) DOES NOT, STANDING ALONE, ESTOP THE DEFENDANT FROM CONTESTING SERVICE OF PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 370 DID NOT EXEMPT COUNTY FROM PROVIDING UNINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE FOR PERSONS DRIVING COUNTY CARS (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF RELIED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS “BAR FIGHT” “INADEQUATE SECURITY” ACTION, THE DEFENDANT BAR HAD TIMELY SUED ITS SECURITY COMPANY AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT; AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED, PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO SUE THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY UNDER A “RELATION BACK” THEORY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FOSTER CARE AGENCY DID NOT PROVE IT MADE DILIGENT EFFORTS TO ENCOURAGE AND STRENGTHEN THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP BEFORE FILING THE PETITION TO TERMINATE MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS; PETITION DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
NO ONE, INCLUDING DEFENDANT DRIVER, SAW THE 17-MONTH-OLD BEFORE HEARING A LOUD “THUMP” AND FINDING THE CHILD LYING BEHIND DEFENDANT’S CAR; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON BLACK ICE WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Claimant’s Failure to Give Timely Written Notice of Injury Excused Claimant, Who Had Been Diagnosed With Job-Related Stress, Did Not Have Good...