You are here: / / THE STATUTORY TIMELY-DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT OF INSURANCE LAW 3420(d)(2)...

THE STATUTORY TIMELY-DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT OF INSURANCE LAW 3420(d)(2) DOES NOT APPLY TO OUT-OF-STATE RISK RETENTION GROUPS (RRG’S), DEFENDANT RRG, WHICH DID NOT ISSUE A TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE IN THE UNDERLYING PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, IS NOT BARRED FROM PRESENTING DEFENSES TO COVERAGE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over an extensive dissenting opinion by Judge Wilson, determined that the statutory timely disclaimer requirement of Insurance Law  3420 (d) (2) does not apply to defendant PCIC, an out-of-state risk retention group (RRG). Therefore PCIC’s failure to make a timely disclaimer of coverage in the underlying personal injury action did not bar PCIC’s coverage defenses. The central issue was one of statutory interpretation. The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that Insurance Law 2601 (a) (6), which applies to RRG’s and requires prompt “disclosure” of coverage, also requires timely “disclaimer” of coverage:

Whether PCIC’s disclaimer is regulated by the Insurance Law turns on whether the reference to an insurer’s failure “to promptly disclose coverage” in section 2601 (a) (6) includes the timely disclaimer requirement of section 3420 (d) (2). Nadkos [plaintiff] argues that section 2601 (a) (6) cites to section 3420 (d) without limitation, and thus encompasses both paragraphs (d) (1) and (d) (2). According to Nadkos, if the Legislature intended to limit section 2601 (a) (6) to a specific subparagraph of section 3420 (d), it knew how to do so … .

We reject the interpretation advocated by Nadkos, and adopted by the dissent, because the prohibition on an unfair claim settlement practice based on a failure to promptly disclose coverage encompasses the mandates of section 3420 (d) (1), not (d) (2). Nadkos, Inc. v Preferred Contrs. Ins. Co. Risk Retention Group LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04641, CtApp 6-11-18

 

You might also like
A “Statutory Resident” of New York for Income Tax Purposes Must Actually Reside In New York, Not Merely Maintain Property in New York
THERE WAS SUPPORT IN THE RECORD FOR THE LOWER COURTS’ FINDING THE ARRESTING OFFICERS COMPLIED WITH THE DEBOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT, EXTENSIVE DISSENTING OPINION (CT APP).
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION BASED UPON A CRIMINAL CONVICTION EXTENDS TO AIDING AND ABETTING DISCRIMINATION BY AN OUT-OF-STATE NON-EMPLOYER.
DEFENDANT WAS PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED BY A SPECIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO DID NOT MEET THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS IN THE COUNTY LAW; THE ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; THE INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).
AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE FAILED TO PROVE THE LEGALITY OF THE TRAFFIC STOP, WHICH WAS BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S MAKING U-TURNS, AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED; THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REARGUE THE MOTION AND PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE U-TURNS WERE, IN FACT, ILLEGAL (CT APP).
“No Action” Clause In a Trust Indenture Interpreted Narrowly Under Established Principles of Contract Interpretation—The Clause Did Not Preclude Suit By Securityholders Based Upon Their Common Law and Statutory Rights In an Action Stemming from the “Credit Default Swap” Crisis
THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS VALID, BUT THE POLICE OFFICERS SAW NOTHING TO INDICATE A WEAPON WAS IN THE CAR; THE SEARCH OF THE CAR AND SEIZURE OF A WEAPON FROM AN OPEN PURSE IN THE BACK SEAT WAS ILLEGAL (FIRST DEPT).
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS ALLOWING A 25 YEAR LOOK BACK FOR CERTAIN DRIVERS WITH DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED CONVICTIONS WERE LAWFULLY PROMULGATED AND APPLIED.

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

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COKE OVENS USED IN THE... ANY BRADY VIOLATIONS WERE NOT “MATERIAL” IN THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE...