You are here: / / NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S INSURER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE...

NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S INSURER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF.

The Second Department determined a notice of disclaimer sent by defendant insurer (FMIC) to plaintiff’s insurer (Mt.Hawley) was not sufficient to disclaim coverage of plaintiff (Harco):

Here, although Mt. Hawley was acting on behalf of the plaintiffs when it sent notice of the occurrence to FMIC and demanded that FMIC assume the plaintiffs’ defense and indemnification in connection with any lawsuits arising from the incident, that did not make Mt. Hawley the plaintiffs’ agent for all purposes, or for the specific purpose that is relevant here: receipt of a notice of disclaimer … . Contrary to FMIC’s contention, Mt. Hawley’s interests were not necessarily the same as Harco’s in this litigation and because Harco had its own interests at stake, separate from that of Mt. Hawley, Harco was entitled to notice delivered to it … . Since FMIC failed to provide timely notice of its denial of coverage on the basis of a policy exclusion to Harco, it is estopped from disclaiming insurance coverage on that ground … . Harco Constr., LLC v First Mercury Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 01846, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

INSURANCE LAW (NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S INSURER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF)/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, NOTICE OF DISCLAIMER SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S INSURER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF)

You might also like
ALLEGATIONS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER.
ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE PRESENTED EVIDENCE OF THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, THEY DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF THE INITIAL STOP OF THE DEFENDANT; THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION AS AN ASSET IN A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUE (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BASED ON A VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN VEHICLE TO WORK AND WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTIES RUNS THROUGH A DRIVEWAY, 10 FEET ON DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY AND SEVEN FEET ON PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PIZZA-DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ALLEGELDY RESISTED ARREST AND INJURED PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER; THE OFFICER’S SUIT AGAINST THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER, UNDER VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT HIRING THEORIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Automobile Policy Does Not Cover Injury to Passerby Bitten by a Dog Which Was Inside a Vehicle
CONDITIONS OF FATHER’S VISITATION CANNOT BE DETERMINED BY A THERAPIST.

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

NEGLECT PETITION ALLEGING EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN... TILTING A SKID FROM A VERTICAL POSITION ONTO A DOLLY IS COVERED UNDER LABOR...