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
Instructions In Will Re: Payment of Estate Taxes Properly Followed
THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS “FALL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER” CASE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED THE INMATE LACKED THE CAPACITY TO MAKE A REASONED DECISION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TREATMENT FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA, PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PROPOSED TREATMENT WAS NARROWLY TAILORED TO THE INMATE’S NEEDS (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OFFICER DEMONSTRATED RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT.
PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER IN A STOPPED CAR HIT FROM BEHIND, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT NO LONGER PRECLUDES SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT THEATER MANAGER WAS NOT A SECURITY GUARD, HIS RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDED DEALING WITH UNRULY PATRONS AND KEEPING THE PREMISES SAFE; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE THREATENED A PATRON WITH A PELLET GUN; THEREBY RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE THEATER WAS LIABLE FOR THE MANAGER’S ACTIONS UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 90-DAY NOTICE; HERE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION HAS MERIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

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