You are here: / / Late Notice of the Accident by the Insured (in Violation of the “Prompt...

Late Notice of the Accident by the Insured (in Violation of the “Prompt Notice Condition), Coupled with the Injured Plaintiff’s Failure to Make Reasonable Efforts to Identify and Notify the Insurer, Relieved the Insurer of Any Obligation to Defend or Indemnify the Insured

Plaintiff was injured while skiing at a ski resort (Nevele’s). The Third Department determined Nevele failed to give timely notice of the accident/injury to its insurer, Lexington.   Nevele did not inform Lexington for ten months. The policy included a “prompt notice condition.” The court noted that, because the injured party can also notify the insurer of an accident, late notice will be excused if the injured party is unable to identify the insurer after making reasonable efforts.  Here the plaintiffs sent a letter to Nevele asking Nevele to notify its insurer, but did nothing further to learn the identity of or notify the insurer.  Plaintiffs’ efforts were not sufficient to excuse the late notice:

Because an injured party is allowed by law to provide notice to an insurance company (see Insurance Law § 3420 [a] [3]), he or she is also generally held to any prompt notice condition precedent of a policy … . However, such an injured party can overcome an insurance company’s failure to receive timely notice — which would otherwise vitiate coverage — by a demonstration that he or she did not know the insurer’s identity despite his or her reasonably diligent efforts to obtain such information … .

As proof of their reasonably diligent efforts, plaintiffs submitted two letters that they had sent to Nevele with an attached questionnaire. The letters provided notice of the contemplated personal injury action, requested that Nevele complete the questionnaire and requested that Nevele either kindly refer the letter to Nevele’s insurance company or inform plaintiffs if Nevele was not insured. The attached questionnaire requested insurance carrier information. However, despite the fact that [plaintiff’s] accident did not involve any automobile, that questionnaire only specifically requested insurance information regarding Nevele’s automobile insurer. Nevele responded to the second correspondence, but it did not respond to the question relating to insurance coverage. The record is devoid of evidence that plaintiffs took any further efforts to ascertain Lexington’s identity.

* * * Given the combination of plaintiffs’ initial failure to specifically ask for the relevant insurance information, their failure to ask for such information after Nevele’s communication and their failure to promptly follow up in any other manner, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to their reasonable efforts to ascertain Lexington’s identity … . Kleinberg v Nevele Hotel, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03891, 3rd Dept 5-7-15

 

You might also like
Retroactive Application of New Regulations Affecting the Revocation of Driver’s Licenses for Alcohol- and Drug-Related Convictions or Incidents Okay—No Vested Right Re: License to Drive
ARBITRATOR’S DECISION FINDING CLAIMANT WAS PROPERLY DISCHARGED FOR MISCONDUCT ENTITLED TO COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN SO INFORMED; REVERSED AND REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO VACATE THE GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Administer Oath to Two Signatories Invalidated Petition—When Oath Required Under the Election Law Explained
THE TRIAL PROOF COULD BE INTERPRETED TO SUPPORT AN INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT SECOND) OR AN INTENT TO CAUSE PHYSICAL INJURY (ASSAULT THIRD); DEFENDANT’S REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THAT COUNT (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT MOVE TO SUPPRESS INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM HIS CELL PHONE, COUNTY COURT ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THAT EVIDENCE, SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORKER’S COMPENSATION LAW PRECLUDED SUIT IN NEGLIGENCE, DEFENDANT WAS BOTH AN OFFICER OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND OWNER, IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, OF THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL.
DISMISSAL OF A CLAIM BASED UPON THE PRECLUSION OF AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) REPORT DID NOT CONSTITUTE LITIGATION OF THE CLAIM; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIM BASED UPON A NEW IME REPORT (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

Plaintiff’s Age-Discrimination Lawsuit Properly Survived Summary Judg... NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff’s Inability to Identify the Precise Sidewalk...