You are here: / / Unexcused Late Disclaimer of Coverage Invalid and Unenforceable

Unexcused Late Disclaimer of Coverage Invalid and Unenforceable

The Third Department determined the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage was invalid and uneforceable because it was inexcusably late.  The court noted that a “reservation of rights letter” does not constitute a disclaimer:

An insurer’s decision to disclaim liability insurance coverage must be given to the insured, in writing, as soon as is reasonably practicable, “failing which the disclaimer or denial will be ineffective” (… see Insurance Law § 3420 [d] [2]…). While the timeliness of an insurer’s notice of disclaimer generally raises an issue of fact for a jury to decide, where, as here, the basis for a disclaimer “was or should have been readily apparent before the onset of the delay,” the delay will be found to be unreasonable as a matter of law … . “Reasonableness of delay is measured from the time when the insurer learns of sufficient facts upon which to base the disclaimer” … . * * *

Even after receiving the attorney’s summary, which ostensibly equipped it with sufficient facts to issue a written disclaimer, plaintiff instead sent defendant a reservation of rights letter, which does not serve as “a substitute for the required notice of disclaimer” … . Vermont Mut Ins Co v Mowery Constr Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07537, 3rd Dept 11-6-14

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY HAD PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECTS IN THE SIDEWALK AND RAILING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT FELL INTO A GORGE, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
No Cause of Action Based Upon “Vicious Propensities” When Plaintiff Knocked Down by Playful Dog
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDINGS THAT MOTHER AND FATHER NEGLECTED THE NEWBORN WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR AMPHETAMINES AND DOCTOR-PRESCRIBED SUBUTEX; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE CHILD’S LOW BIRTH WEIGHT AND NEED FOR COMFORTING WAS RELATED TO AMPHETAMINES AS OPPOSED TO THE SUBUTEX; FATHER’S “HOSTILE” BEHAVIOR TOWARD PETITIONERS AND HIS REFUSAL TO SIGN A BIRTH CERTIFICATE WERE NOT VALID GROUNDS FOR A NEGLECT FINDING (THIRD DEPT).
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF CLOSED CONTAINERS WERE NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE ITEMS BEING IN DEFENDANT’S “GRABBABLE” AREA OR BY “EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES;” CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant Entitled to a Hearing On His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Newly Discovered Evidence Someone Else Confessed to the Crime
Sufficient Factual Allegations of Malpractice Not Made/Denial of Motion to Reargue Appealable as of Right Because the Merits Were Dealt with By the Motion Court
DEFENDANTS’ ERRONEOUSLY DESCRIBED EASEMENT PROPERLY RELOCATED BY PLAINTIFF.
CRITERIA FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL EXPLAINED (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

Insufficient Break Between Unwarned Statement and Subsequent Warned Statement—All... Worker Struck by Falling Brick Entitled to Summary Judgment/Comparative Negligence...