You are here: / / INSURED’S EXCUSES FOR DELAY IN NOTIFYING INSURANCE BROKERS OF PENDING...

INSURED’S EXCUSES FOR DELAY IN NOTIFYING INSURANCE BROKERS OF PENDING ACTION NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT BROKERS PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant-insurance-brokers who procured the policy on the plaintiff-insured's behalf. The insured did not notify the brokers of the action against the insured for 52 days. The excuses offered by the insured for the delay (complicated policy language, good-faith belief insured was not liable) were not supported by sufficient evidence:

Where an insurance policy requires an insured to provide notice ” 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” … . “[T]here may be circumstances that excuse a failure to give timely notice, such as where the insured has a good-faith belief of nonliability,' provided that belief is reasonable” … . It is the insured's burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of the excuse … . “Ordinarily, the question of whether the insured had a good-faith belief in nonliability, and whether that belief was reasonable, presents an issue of fact and not one of law” … . “Nevertheless, the issue of whether an insured's excuse for the delay is reasonable 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'” … . Rockland Exposition, Inc. v Marshall & Sterling Enters., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03157, 2nd Dept 4-27-16


You might also like
The Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy In an Envelope Containing His Personal Belongings—The Belongings Were Placed in the Envelope Upon Defendant’s Admission to a Hospital—Even though the Police Were Under the Impression the Defendant Was a Crime Victim, Not a Perpetrator, at the Time the Contents of the Envelope Were Examined, the Search Was Not Justified—Defendant Had an Expectation of Privacy Re: the Contents of the Envelope—The People Were Unable to Meet their “Burden of Going Forward” at the Suppression Hearing Because They Could Not Demonstrate the Legality of the Police Conduct
MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER WAS A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE WAS SUBJECT TO A NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 306-b IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE HAD BEEN VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED INITIALLY (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE TO A SUBCONTRACTOR FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; THE SUBCONTRACTOR WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE PROBLEM ALLEGEDLY CREATED BY THE CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE REFEREE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON; THEREFORE THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT WARRANT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONERS, INMATES AT A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RAISED ALLEGATIONS COGNIZABLE IN HABEAS CORPUS REGARDING THE FACILITY’S RESPONSE TO COVID-19; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITIONERS SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED (SECOND DEPT).
GALLBLADDER SURGERY WAS PERFORMED ON PLAINTIFF, BUT HER GALLBLADDER HAD BEEN REMOVED YEARS BEFORE; THE DOCTORS APPARENTLY DID NOT REVIEW THE AVAIABLE MEDICAL RECORDS; THE RADIOLOGIST DID NOT DISCOVER THAT THE GALLBLADDER WAS ABSENT; THE DOCTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

CITIBANK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER AN ACCOUNT STATED THEORY TO... DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT AND...