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
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY DETERMINED NEW YORK WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE FORUM IN THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, BUT THE NEW YORK PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED, NOT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT RESTAURANT-BAR DEMONSTRATED ITS EMPLOYEE DID NOT KNOW THE DRIVER WAS UNDER 21, RESTAURANT-BAR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS DEFAULTED, THE REFEREE’S REPORT FUNCTIONS AS AN INQUEST ON DAMAGES WHICH THE DEFENDANTS CAN CONTEST (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER PREVAILED IN THE FOIL PROCEEDING AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES; HOWEVER, PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO LEGAL COSTS INCURRED IN PROSECUTING THE PETITIONER’S CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, SO-CALLED “FEES ON FEES” (SECOND DEPT).
THE ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE DID NOT DESCRIBE THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT CONSTITUTING NEGLECT BY THE PLAINTIFF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
VILLAGE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION WHICH LED TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIP AND FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE PETITION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A GUARDIAN TO MANAGE THE AFFAIRS OF A SEVERELY DISABLED PERSON, THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT AUTHORIZES THE APPOINTMENT, SURROGATE’S COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PETITION SHOULD BE BROUGHT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).
EXTRINSIC COLLATERAL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO IMPEACH DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S CREDIBILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE $400,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2025 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...