You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether the insured made a misrepresentation to the insurer and whether the insurer timely disclaimed coverage for a dog bite. There were questions of fact whether the insured was asked about a prior bite by the dog and gave a false answer, and whether there had actually been a prior bite by the dog which would trigger a policy exclusion:

“When construing Insurance Law § 3420 (d), which requires an insurer to issue a written disclaimer of coverage for death or bodily injuries arising out of accidents ‘as soon as is reasonably possible,’ [the Court of Appeals has] made clear that timeliness almost always presents a factual question, requiring an assessment of all relevant circumstances surrounding a particular disclaimer[, and] cases in which the reasonableness of an insurer’s delay may be decided as a matter of law are exceptional and present extreme circumstances” … . “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” … . The insurer has an obligation not only to promptly provide notice of disclaimer once it has reached that decision, but to promptly investigate and reach a decision on whether to disclaim … . …

[The insurer] argues that it was entitled to rely on [the insured’s] statement that the dog had not previously bitten anyone. As noted above, there is a question of fact regarding whether [the insurer’s] claims manager actually asked [the insured] if she knew of any prior biting events. If the claims manager never asked that question, the record evidence presents a triable issue of fact as to whether [the insurer] failed to conduct a reasonable and prompt investigation into the potential applicability of the canine exclusion … . If the claims manager asked that question and received a negative answer, as she averred, then [the insurer] would be justified in relying on the representation by its insured … ; however, given that the [insured] had owned the dog for only approximately one month, there would still be a triable question of fact regarding the reasonableness of [the insured’s] investigation. As neither party established, as a matter of law, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the delay in [the insured’s  disclaimer, neither party was entitled to summary judgment … . Battisti v Broome Coop. Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 04992, Third Dept 7-5-18

​INSURANCE LAW (DOG BITES, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT))/ANIMAL LAW (DOG BITES, INSURANCE LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT))/DISCLAIMERS (INSURANCE LAW, DOG BITES, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT ARGUED HAD SHE BEEN INFORMED DEPORTATION WAS NOT AN ISSUE SHE WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY AND THEREBY AVOIDED THE LONGER SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER TRIAL, HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD.
WHEN DEFENDANT INDICATED AT SENTENCING HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ONE OF THE RELEVANT OFFENSES THE SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT ABOUT WHETHER HIS WISHED TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, FAILURE TO DO SO REQUIRED REVERSAL.
Negligence and Fraudulent Misrepresentation Causes of Action Can Not Be Based on Allegations of Breach of Contract 
CLAIMANT WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED WHEN WINDING UP HIS CORPORATION’S BUSINESS, ACTUAL FINANCIAL GAIN IS NOT A PREREQUISITE TO FINDING A CLAIMANT IS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED (THIRD DEPT).
Defense Counsel Took a Position Adverse to the Defendant’s—Sentence Vacated
New Factual Claim Made for the First Time at Trial by Defendant Triggered “Inconsistent Statements” Jury Charge; Prior Injuries to Child Admissible under Molineux
THIRD DEPT, UNLIKE THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, REQUIRES THE CPLR EXPERT-WITNESS NOTICE EVEN FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN, PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO DECIDE IF THE DOCTOR WILL TESTIFY AS A FACT WITNESS, AN EXPERT WITNESS, OR BOTH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NOTICE FAILURE TO BE IMPOSED ACCORDINGLY.
ATTEMPT TO CONTEST THE NYS BOARD OF ELECTIONS’ FAILURE TO PLUG THE LLC LOOPHOLE, WHICH ALLOWS HIGHER CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FOR LLC’S THAN FOR CORPORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS, PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING AND LACK OF A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY (THIRD 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

PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A WETLAND CONTROL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL... PLANNING BOARD’S FINDING THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT...