You are here: / / INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO SATISFY JUDGMENT AGAINST ITS INSURED; INJURED...

INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO SATISFY JUDGMENT AGAINST ITS INSURED; INJURED PARTY FAILED TO TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF THE FIRE WHICH CAUSED THE DAMAGE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff insurer was not required to satisfy the injured party's (Seville's) judgment against its insured because Seville did not timely notify plaintiff insurer of the fire which damaged Seville's property:

“Insurance Law § 3420(a)(2) expressly permits an injured party to recover any unsatisfied judgment against an insured, directly from the insurer” … . Insurance Law § 3420(a)(3) requires the injured party to demonstrate that he or she acted diligently in attempting to ascertain the identity of the insurer, and thereafter expeditiously notified the insurer … . “In determining the reasonableness of an injured party's notice, the notice required is measured less rigidly than that required of the insured[ ]” … . “The injured person's rights must be judged by the prospects for giving notice that were afforded him, not by those available to the insured” … . “What is reasonably possible for the insured may not be reasonably possible for the person he has injured. The passage of time does not of itself make delay unreasonable” … .

Here, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that Seville failed to act diligently in attempting to ascertain the plaintiff's identity and in expeditiously notifying it. In opposition, Seville failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v Seville Electronics Trading Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 03862, 2nd Dept 5-18-16

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO SATISFY JUDGMENT AGAINST ITS INSURED; INJURED PARTY FAILED TO TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF THE FIRE WHICH CAUSED THE DAMAGE)

You might also like
FAMILY COURT HELD A HEARING IN THE MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING BUT DID NOT STATE IN ITS DECISION THE FACTS RELIED UPON TO DENY THE PETITION; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE, REVERSED FAMILY COURT, AND GRANTED MOTHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
Civil Forfeiture Should Not Have Been Made Part of Defendant’s Sentence In the Absence of Defendant’s Voluntary Agreement
HERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY AN EXPERT WITNESS AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3101 AND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SCARRING AND BURNING DURING LASER HAIR REMOVAL AND MAY STILL BE ABLE TO PROVE ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF HIS TREATING PHYSICIAN AND OTHER EVIDENCE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Defense Request to Review Psychiatric Records of Prosecution Witness Properly Denied; Evidence of Shooting of Prosecution Witness Properly Admitted to Show Defendant’s Consciousness of Guilt
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF’S SON WAS INJURED, ACCORDING TO EXPERT EVIDENCE, WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS, WAS PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND WAS NONHAZARDOUS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS DID NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
30-DAY TIME TO APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ALL PARTIES IS TRIGGERED BY THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF ENTRY BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED A NECESSARY PARTY WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A DEFENDANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DESPITE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE EXCUSE (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

33 HOUR DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT, UNDER THE FACTS, DID NOT RENDER STATEMENT INVOLUNTARILY... DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POLICE DID...