You are here: / / INSURED’S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH INSURER RELIEVED INSURER OF LIABILITY...

INSURED’S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH INSURER RELIEVED INSURER OF LIABILITY FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court’s judgment after a bench trial, determined defendant insurer demonstrated the insured refused to cooperate with the insurer’s defense in this oil-spill case, relieving the insurer of liability for the default judgment against the insured:

An insurer that seeks to disclaim coverage based on its insured’s alleged noncooperation is required to demonstrate that “it acted diligently in seeking to bring about its insured’s cooperation, that its efforts were reasonably calculated to obtain its insured’s cooperation, and that the attitude of its insured, after the cooperation of its insured was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction'” … . The insurer has a “heavy” burden of proving lack of cooperation … . The inference of noncooperation must be “practically compelling” … .

Based on the evidence adduced at trial, we find that American States met its heavy burden of proving that its insured breached the subject policy by failing to cooperate in the defense of the underlying action. American States made diligent efforts, through written correspondence, numerous telephone calls, and a visit to the insured’s home, that were reasonably calculated to bring about the insured’s cooperation. Further, its insured’s attitude, after his cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction. Among other trial evidence, there was testimony from an investigator who met with the insured at the insured’s home. The investigator testified that the investigator told the insured that the insured risked losing coverage under the policy if the insured refused to cooperate. The insured, while acknowledging that he knew that he had attorneys defending him and that a default judgment could be entered against him if he failed to appear at a deposition, made statements to the effect that he would cooperate only if he were paid for certain work he claimed to have performed, and that the plaintiff could “just get in line” were it to obtain a judgment against him. West St. Props., LLC v American States Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 03555, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURED’S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH INSURER RELIEVED INSURER OF LIABILITY FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED)/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, REFUSAL TO COOPERATE IN DEFENSE, INSURED’S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH INSURER RELIEVED INSURER OF LIABILITY FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED)

You might also like
THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST PHYSICAL-THERAPY DEFENDANTS SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REQUIRING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE; THE DOCTRINE OF OSTENSIBLE OR APPARENT AGENCY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PHYSICAL-THERAPY FACILITY WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE THERAPIST, WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Vacate Convictions Granted—People Failed to Provide “Brady” Material In Time for the Defense to Make Meaningful Use of It
SEARCH NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, INJURY NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ASSAULT 2ND.
PLAINTIFF, A FLORIDA RESIDENT, ALLEGEDLY WAS ABUSED BY A PRIEST IN FLORIDA IN 1983 AND 1984; PLAINTIFF SUED THE DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN BECAUSE THE PRIEST WHO ALLEGEDLY ABUSED HIM WAS TRANSFERRED FROM BROOKLYN TO FLORIDA, ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH CHILDREN; THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE NONRESIDENT PLAINTIFF AND THE BORROWING STATUTE DOES APPLY; THEREFORE FLORIDA’S FOUR-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RENDERED PLAINTIFF’S ACTION TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DINER’S SECURITY GUARD KNOCKED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND AND CHOKED HIM; WHETHER THE DINER DEFENDANTS ARE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH AN INTERROGATORY ON THE SCOPE-OF-EMPLOYMENT QUESTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPLICATION FOR A WARRANT FOR THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CELL PHONE DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH; THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).
THE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE EXCUSE WAS INADEQUATE BUT THE CITY HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (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

INJURED PARTY DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF HIS CLAIM, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED... ELECTRICIAN SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN DRIVEWAY OF DEFENDANTS’ HOME, DEFENDANTS,...