You are here: / / LATE NOTIFICATION OF THE INSURER BY THE INSURED ABOUT AN ACTION AGAINST...

LATE NOTIFICATION OF THE INSURER BY THE INSURED ABOUT AN ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED DOES NOT EXCUSE A LATE DISCLAIMER, TIMELINESS OF A DISCLAIMER DEPENDS ON WHEN THE INSURER FIRST LEARNED OF THE ACTION.

The Second Department noted that an insured’s failure to timely notify the insurer of an action does not relieve the insurer of the obligation to timely disclaim. Whether a disclaimer is timely is determined by when the insurer first learned of the action, not when the insured notified it of the action:

… [The] “failure of an insured to timely notify the insurer of a claim does not excuse the insurer’s failure to timely disclaim coverage” … . “The timeliness of an insurer’s disclaimer is measured from the point in time when the insurer first learns of the grounds for disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage” … . In opposition to the cross motion, [the insured] raised triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the commencement of the underlying action in April 2012, or, at the latest, October 2012, and thus, whether it timely disclaimed coverage in March 2013, on the basis of, inter alia, late receipt of a copy of the summons and complaint. Evanston Ins. Co. v P.S. Bruckel, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03489, 2nd Dept 5-3-17

INSURANCE LAW (LATE NOTIFICATION OF THE INSURER BY THE INSURED ABOUT AN ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED DOES NOT EXCUSE A LATE DISCLAIMER, TIMELINESS OF A DISCLAIMER DEPENDS ON WHEN THE INSURER FIRST LEARNED OF THE ACTION)/DISCLAIMER (INSURANCE LAW, LATE NOTIFICATION OF THE INSURER BY THE INSURED ABOUT AN ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED DOES NOT EXCUSE A LATE DISCLAIMER, TIMELINESS OF A DISCLAIMER DEPENDS ON WHEN THE INSURER FIRST LEARNED OF THE ACTION)

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE RESTRICTED THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES OF COMPLAINANTS AND COMPLAINANTS’ PARENTS FOR THEIR PROTECTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE IMPOUNDMENT AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, WHICH WAS LEGALLY PARKED AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, WERE ILLEGAL; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
A SUBSEQUENT DEED INCLUDING THE EASEMENT WAS A VALID CORRECTION DEED; THE STRANGER TO THE DEED RULE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEEDS WITH THE EASEMENT CAME FROM THE SAME GRANTOR; THE EASEMENT WAS THEREFORE VALID AND DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENJOINED FROM CLEARING IT (SECOND DEPT).
THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE WERE NOT INTERTWINED; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT THAT THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; IN RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, THE JUDGE PROPERLY TOLD THEM THEY COULD FIND THAT THE ACCIDENT DID NOT HAPPEN (SECOND DEPT).
DISPUTE ABOUT VOTES FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF A RELIGIOUS CORPORATION PROPERLY RESOLVED BY THE COURTS, THE MATTER DID NOT REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF RELIGIOUS ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).
HERE IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA) CASE, THE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF BY A TEACHER WERE BASED ON HER INABILITY TO CONSENT UNDER THE PENAL LAW; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL COULD ONLY BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION UNTIL PLAINTIFF TURNED 17; ALTHOUGH THE ABUSE WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS, THE TEACHER, DURING SCHOOL HOURS, ALLEGEDLY MADE PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE AND MADE ARRANGEMENTS TO MEET HER AFTER SCHOOL; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Prosecution Failed to Prove the Requisite Intent and Materiality in a Perjury Case
THE MEDICAL CENTER WAS ENTITLED TO THE NO-FAULT INSURANCE BENEFITS ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE PEDESTRIAN INJURED BY PLAINTIFF’S TAXI; THE FACT THAT THE PEDESTRIAN HAD SETTLED HIS ACTION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF TAXI COMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S OBLIGATION TO PAY THE NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO THE MEDICAL CENTER (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

BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, CRITERIA... INJURED PARTY DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF HIS CLAIM, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED...