You are here: / / INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE...

INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION.

The Second Department determined the insurer (Global) did not demonstrate it was entitled to disclaim coverage based upon the noncooperation of the insured:

“An insurer who seeks to disclaim coverage on the ground of noncooperation is required to demonstrate that (1) it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) its efforts were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) the attitude of the insured, after its cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction” … . “[M]ere efforts by the insurer and mere inaction on the part of the insured, without more, are insufficient to establish non-cooperation as the inference of non-cooperation must be practically compelling'” … .

Here, Global established that it made diligent efforts that were reasonably calculated to obtain the cooperation of BMC and Abduahadov … . However, Global failed to demonstrate that the conduct of BMC and Abduahadov constituted “willful and avowed obstruction” … . Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Fletcher, 2017 NY Slip Op 01199, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION)/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION)/NONCOOPERATION (INSURANCE LAW, DISCLAIMER, INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLAIMER BASED UPON THE INSURED’S NONCOOPERATION

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED FATHER VISITATION BASED UPON FATHER’S BEHAVIOR WHEN MOTHER TESTIFIED; FUTURE VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON DRUG SCREENINGS AND A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION.
STATUTE OF FRAUDS (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NOT MET, PART PERFORMANCE NOT APPLICABLE.
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY.
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB PRECLUDING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACTION BY POLICE OFFICER STEMMING FROM A FALL AT THE OFFICE; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e ACTION PROPERLY BASED ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 27-a.
MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER HAD PAID ALL THE CHILD SUPPORT HE OWED; THE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
COURTS OF EQUITY HAVE BROAD POWERS TO ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FORECLOSURE IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY... HOMEOWNER’S EXCEPTION APPLIED TO HOMEOWNER BUT NOT TO AGENT OF HOMEOWNER...