You are here: / / Five-Month Delay in Notifying Carrier Not Justified by Insured’s Belief L...
,

Five-Month Delay in Notifying Carrier Not Justified by Insured’s Belief Lawsuit Was Fraudulent

The Third Department determined, as a matter of law, that defendant’s failure to notify the insurance carrier of a personal injury lawsuit for nearly five months justified the carrier’s denial of coverage.  The court noted that defendant’s belief the lawsuit was fraudulent was not a “good-faith belief of nonliability;”

“Where a policy of liability insurance requires that notice of an occurrence be given ‘as soon as practicable,’ such notice must be accorded the carrier within a reasonable period of time. The insured’s failure to satisfy the notice requirement constitutes a failure to comply with a condition precedent which, as a matter of law, vitiates the contract” … .  Although “there may be circumstances where the insured’s failure to give timely notice is excusable, . . . [t]he insured bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the proffered excuse” … .  In this regard, the reasonableness of the insured’s excuse – although generally presenting a question of fact for a jury … – “may be determined as a matter of law where the evidence, construing all inferences in favor of the insured, establishes that the belief was unreasonable or in bad faith” … .

Here, defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon plaintiff’s nearly five-month delay (August 2008 to January 2009) in notifying defendant of the underlying personal injury action …, and plaintiff failed to tender sufficient proof to raise a question of fact as to the reasonableness of such delay.  Plaintiff’s personal belief that the guest’s lawsuit was fraudulent is not the equivalent of “a good-faith belief of nonliability” … . Vale…v Vermont Mutual Insurance Group, 515999, 3rd Dept 12-5-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED WATER WAS NOT DIVERTED ONTO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN BAD FAITH.
Grant of Visitation to Grandmother Reversed
A JAIL PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE MIGHT PLEAD GUILTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHED ANY PROBATIVE VALUE; THE PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION REFERENCE TO THE PORTION OF THE PHONE CALL IN WHICH DEFENDANT SAID HE NEEDED A “PAID LAWYER” WAS AN IMPROPER USE OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AGAINST THE DEFENDANT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Sole Officer of Dissolved Corporation Personally Liable for Post-Dissolution Debts Attributed to “New Business”
Father’s Status as an Untreated Sex Offender, Together with Mother’s Willingness to Leave the Children with Father Unsupervised, Was Sufficient to Establish Neglect
MATTER REMITTED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH TO DETERMINE WHETHER BONE SURGERY TO REPAIR CANCER-RELATED DAMAGE TO PETITIONER’S JAW IS COVERED UNDER MEDICAID, IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE DSS REGULATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S GUIDELINES, THE REGULATIONS CONTROL (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED, SO THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD INTENTIONALLY THROWN INTO THE EXCAVATED AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (THIRD DEPT).
WHETHER TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE IS A STRATEGIC DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT RELINQUISH HIS AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL MERELY BY CONFERRING WITH THE DEFENDANT AND AGREEING WITH THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED, IT WAS NOT ERROR TO HANDCUFF DEFENDANT AND TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SEATED NEAR THE DEFENDANT DURING THE TRIAL (THIRD 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

Commissioner of Labor Can Not Be Sued for Her Exercise of Discretionary Judgment... Comparative Negligence Not Available in Labor Law 240 (1) Action—Claimant...