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
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED WITH BATSON INQUIRIES FOR THREE BLACK PROSPECTIVE JURORS; BASED ON THE JUDGE’S REMARKS THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A HEARING AND REPORT BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE AS AN APPARENT SANCTION FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
RPAPL 1301(3) PROHIBITS MORE THAN ONE FORECLOSURE AT A TIME; THE VIOLATION OF THAT STATUTE HERE WAS A MERE IRREGULARITY WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED; THE PRIOR ACTION WAS DISMISSED AFTER THE INSTANT ACTION WAS COMMENCED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER WALKING ON THE REBAR GRID WAS AN INHERENT RISK OF THE JOB AND WHETHER THE GRID WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED A DIRECTED VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN THE PATH OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DISMISSING THE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE, IN RENDERING THE VERDICT, STATED THE DEFENDANT HAD NOT PROVEN HE WAS FRAMED AND THEREFORE WAS GUILTY; THAT SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO THE DEFENDANT, REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS STRICT FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR REFORECLOSURE UNDER RPAPL 1503; REFORECLOSURE IS AN OPTION WHEN THE ORIGINAL FORECLOSURE MAY BE VOID OR VOIDABLE AS AGAINST ANY PERSON (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition Alleged to Have Caused Plaintiff to Fall–Defendant Therefore Not Entitled to Summary Judgment

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...