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
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD THE MANDATORY STATUTORY HEARING; APPEAL IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF LASTING CONSEQUENCES OF THE ‘DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER’ FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE ROADWAY DEPRESSION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
A GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY SOUNDS IN TORT TRIGGERING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S UNSUPPORTED ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR END COLLISION CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Expert’s Affidavit Should Have Been Considered in Summary Judgment Motion Even though Expert Had Not Been Disclosed​
No Special Duty Owed by School to School Employee Injured by Students Who Collided with Her
ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A WORKER UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6), HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, BY CONTRACT, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY AT THE WORKSITE AND SUPERVISED THE WORK; THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND POTENTIALLY LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; DEFENDANT’S ONE-YEAR SENTENCE, WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN SERVED, WAS REDUCED BY ONE DAY IN PART TO ADDRESS THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF A ONE-YEAR SENTENCE (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

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