You are here: / / INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS ...

INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS NOT THE INSURED; DISCLAIMER ONLY ADDRESSED INSURED’S NOTIFICATION FAILURE AND WAS THEREFORE INEFFECTIVE AGAINST PLANTIFFS.

The Second Department determined the insurer’s disclaimer was ineffective against the injured plaintiffs. The policy required that the insured, here the snow removal contractor (Florite), notify the insurer of any lawsuit by an injured party. The insured did not notify the insurer of the plaintiffs’ suit. After the plaintiffs were awarded a judgment, the plaintiffs notified the insurer. The insurer disclaimed coverage based solely on the insured’s failure to notify it, but did not disclaim based upon any flaw in the plaintiffs’ notification. In this situation, a disclaimer must address any flaws in both the insured’s and the injured plaintiffs’ notification:

Provisions of an insurance policy requiring an insured to provide notice of an occurrence or suit as soon as practicable have been uniformly interpreted to require that notice be given within a reasonable time under all the circumstances … . Where the required notice of suit is not provided by the insured, but rather by the injured party, the insurer’s notice of disclaimer must address with specificity the grounds for disclaiming coverage applicable to the injured party as well as the insured, “because notice of an occurrence by the injured party constitutes prima facie compliance with the notice requirements of the policy and, if unchallenged, relieves the insured of its contractual duty to provide proper notice” … .

Here, notice of the underlying action was not provided by Florite, but was provided directly by the plaintiffs in September 2010. In its subsequent notice of disclaimer, however, the insurer addressed only Florite’s failure to provide notice of the underlying action, and did not directly address the notice provided by the plaintiffs.  Pollack v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2016 NY Slip Op 06693, 2nd Dept 10-12-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (DISCLAIMER, INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS NOT THE INSURED; DISCLAIMER ONLY ADDRESSED INSURED’S NOTIFICATION FAILURE AND WAS THEREFORE INEFFECTIVE AGAINST PLANTIFFS)/DISCLAIMERS (INSURER WAS NOTIFIED OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFFS NOT THE INSURED; DISCLAIMER ONLY ADDRESSED INSURED’S NOTIFICATION FAILURE AND WAS THEREFORE INEFFECTIVE AGAINST PLANTIFFS)

You might also like
THERE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER SUCH THAT THE SUCCESSOR CORPORATION WAS LIABLE FOR THE TORTS OF ITS PREDECESSOR; THE CORPORATE VEIL WAS PROPERLY PIERCED TO FIND THE OWNER OF THE CORPORATION LIABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LOW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TO THE GROUND WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND HER MOTHER REQUIRING MOTHER TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO THE PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN A YEAR AND THEREFORE DID NOT VIOLATE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS; THE RELATED BREACH OF CONTRACT AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
CONTRACT LAW/EVIDENCE Parol Evidence (Email) Properly Admitted to Explain Ambiguous Term in Construction Contract with a Merger Clause—Relevant Law Succinctly Explained
SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROPERLY GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT VERSUS A VARIANCE EXPLAINED 2ND DEPT.
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THIS DIVORCE ACTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MEANING OF ‘GROSS EARNED INCOME’ IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AFFECTED THE CALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT; THE TERM WAS AMBIGUOUS REQUIRING A HEARING TO DETERMINE THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
RESPONDENT, THE CHILDREN’S UNCLE WHO LIVED WITH THE CHILDREN’S FAMILY, WAS A FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A PARENT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE PROCEEDING (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

CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIS... SEX OFFENDER’S PETITION TO TERMINATE STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION...