You are here: / / INSURER FAILED TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN THE COVERAGE OF THE...
,

INSURER FAILED TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN THE COVERAGE OF THE UNDERLYING AUTO LIABILITY POLICY REQUIRED BY ITS UMBRELLA POLICY, UMBRELLA POLICY REFORMED TO RESTORE THE RESULTING GAP IN COVERAGE.

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, determined defendant insurer failed to notify plaintiff of an elimination of coverage as required by Insurance Law 3425. The insurance contract was reformed to include the eliminated coverage. Plaintiff had a $1,000,000 umbrella auto insurance policy with the defendant insurer (Allstate). When plaintiff purchased the umbrella policy it required $100,000/$300,000 coverage in the underlying policy. Although the limit of the umbrella policy did not change, the requirements for the underlying policy were increased to $250,000/$500,000. After an accident, Allstate paid the excess over $250,000, but refused to pay the difference between the $100,000 actual coverage of the underlying policy and the $250,000 required coverage:

Insurance Law § 3425 imposes restrictions on a liability insurer’s right to cancel, refuse to renew, or condition renewal of a policy, and requires the insurer to provide notice to the policyholder before any cancellation, nonrenewal, or conditional renewal occurs. At issue on this appeal is Insurance Law § 3425(d)(1), which requires an insurer to notify a policyholder, at least 45 days before the end of the coverage period, of its intention to condition renewal “upon change of limits or elimination of any coverages,” and to provide a specific reason for so conditioning renewal. … [W]e find that the notice requirement of Insurance Law § 3425(d)(1) applies where, as here, an insurer issues an umbrella policy providing the policyholder with additional coverage above the limits of his or her automobile coverage, and then increases the amount of underlying automobile liability insurance the policyholder must maintain before the additional coverage provided by the umbrella policy becomes available. We further find that an insurer’s failure to comply with Insurance Law § 3425(d)(1) provides a basis for reformation of the subject policy. Gotkin v Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 05359, 2nd Dept 7-6-16

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER FAILED TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN THE COVERAGE OF THE UNDERLYING AUTO LIABILITY POLICY REQUIRED BY ITS UMBRELLA POLICY, UMBRELLA POLICY REFORMED TO RESTORE THE RESULTING GAP IN COVERAGE)/CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE POLICY, INSURER FAILED TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN THE COVERAGE OF THE UNDERLYING AUTO LIABILITY POLICY REQUIRED BY ITS UMBRELLA POLICY, UMBRELLA POLICY REFORMED TO RESTORE THE RESULTING GAP IN COVERAGE)/REFORMATION (INSURANCE POLICY, INSURER FAILED TO GIVE ADEQUATE NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN THE COVERAGE OF THE UNDERLYING AUTO LIABILITY POLICY REQUIRED BY ITS UMBRELLA POLICY, UMBRELLA POLICY REFORMED TO RESTORE THE RESULTING GAP IN COVERAGE)

You might also like
FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM BRINGING FUTURE PARENTAL ACCESS PETITIONS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL (SECOND DEPT).
FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SIGNING OF A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED; RELEVANT STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND BURDENS OF PROOF EXPLAINED.
RECORDS OF POLICE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN DISCIPLINARY ACTION ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF A FOIL REQUEST (SECOND DEPT). ​
Federal Arbitration Act Applies When Interstate Commerce Involved
THE PROBATION CONDITION THAT DEFENDANT “SUPPORT DEPENDENTS AND MEET OTHER FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES” WAS NOT TAILORED TO THE OFFENSE (CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON) AND WAS THEREFORE DELETED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE LABOR-LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY THE RESULT OF THE PRIOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION HEARING UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED (SECOND DEPT).
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING HIS BICYCLE THE WRONG WAY ON A ONE-WAY STREET WHEN HE WAS STRUCK DID NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE CAN BE MORE THAN ONE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT NO LONGER NEED BE SHOWN (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS REQUIRED... FATHER’S MOTION TO DISMISS MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION...