You are here: / / Disclaimer of Coverage Unreasonably Untimely as a Matter of Law

Disclaimer of Coverage Unreasonably Untimely as a Matter of Law

The Second Department determined the defendant insurer’s disclaimer of coverage was unreasonably untimely as a matter of law:

An insurance company has an affirmative obligation to provide written notice of a disclaimer of coverage as soon as is reasonably possible, even where the policyholder’s own notice of the claim to the insurer is untimely … . Here, the defendant learned by January 6, 2012, at the latest, about the underlying personal injury action. The defendant was aware by that date of the grounds for disclaimer of coverage … . Nevertheless, it did not disclaim coverage until March 28, 2012, almost three months later, a delay that, under the circumstances of this case, is unreasonable as a matter of law … . Darling Ferreira v Global Liberty Ins Co of NY, 2014 NY Slip Op 05409, 2nd Dept 7-23-14

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE HOME WAS ILLUMINATED WHEN THE PROCESS SERVER ATTEMPTED SERVICE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS EVADING SERVICE; THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT ATTEMPT SERVICE AT DEFENDANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT; THE “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THREE PRIOR GUN-RELATED CONVICTIONS IF HE TESTIFIED THE SHOOTING WAS AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
Height Differential Open and Obvious
PLAINTIFF’S FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48; THE 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ONLY APPLIES TO THE DIRECTION TO SUBMIT A JUDGMENT “ON NOTICE” (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION TO REMOVE A TRUSTEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE VARIANCE, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTEREST OF THE RELEVANT STATUTE.
THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW PROHIBITION OF SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL COSTS FROM A TORT ACTION SETTLEMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO SELF-FUNDED EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS (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

Extremely Forgiving Nature of CPLR 3216 (Dismissal for Neglect to Prosecute)... Failure to Specifically Demonstrate When Area Where Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected...