You are here: / / AFTER OBTAINING AN UNPAID JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY...

AFTER OBTAINING AN UNPAID JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY SUED THE INSURER WHICH HAD DISCLAIMED COVERAGE ALLEGING THE INSURED HAD REFUSED TO COOPERATE; THE PROOF OF THE INSURED’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COOPERATE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a comprehensive decision explaining the law, determined plaintiff properly sued the defendant’s insurer after obtaining an unpaid judgment against the insured. The insurer argued it had properly disclaimed coverage because the insured did not cooperate by answering questions. However, the insurer’s submissions did not demonstrate the insured’s failure to cooperate and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against the insurer:

[The] statutory right, presently codified at Insurance Law § 3420, among other things, “grants an injured party a right to sue the tortfeasor’s insurer, but only under limited circumstances—the injured party must first obtain a judgment against the tortfeasor, serve the insurance company with a copy of the judgment and await payment for 30 days” … . “Compliance with these requirements is a condition precedent to a direct action against the insurance company” … . * * *

Here, the insurer contended that [the insured’s] principal, Michael Stoicescu, refused to cooperate and thereby breached the subject policy. The insurer did not allege that any other individuals associated with [the insured]  failed to cooperate. Although the insurer claimed that Stoicescu refused to cooperate in the underlying action, it is undisputed that he appeared for an examination before trial where he testified at length … . The insurer failed to identify any information that Stoicescu refused to disclose, or any document that he refused to provide in connection with the underlying action … . The insurer’s contention that Stoicescu refused to respond to certain telephone calls and letters was insufficient to show “an attitude of willful and avowed obstruction” … . Furthermore, although the insurer submitted evidence to show that, after years of litigation, Stoicescu had stated during one or more telephone calls that he would not attend a trial in the underlying action, any such statements were made before a date for the trial had even been set … , and the insurer did not allege that Stoicescu actually failed to appear for any required court appearance … . DeLuca v RLI Ins. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 05487, Second Dept 10-7-20

 

You might also like
Delay In Retaining Expert Did Not Warrant Preclusion of Expert’s Testimony
VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2) (DWI) IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2-A) (AGGRAVATED DWI) (SECOND DEPT). ​
CONVICTION OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE ACQUITTALS ON THE REMAINING 27 COUNTS OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT, COURT CANNOT CONSIDER DEFENDANT’S ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT FOR AFFIRMANCE ON AN APPEAL BROUGHT BY THE PEOPLE (SECOND DEPT).
No Action Where Plaintiff Struck by Small Piece of Sheetrock Dropped from Third Floor
Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Alone Will Not Support Civil Commitment of Sex Offender
HERE THE CLAIMANT WAS DEEMED DISABLED BY AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE (CANCER) CAUSED BY EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS; THE EMPLOYER RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPENSATION IS THE LAST EMPLOYER WHERE THE NATURE OF THE WORK EXPOSED CLAIMANT TO ASBESTOS, NOT NECESSARILY THE EMPLOYER AT THE TIME THE CANCER WAS DIAGNOSED (THIRD DEPT).
GALLBLADDER SURGERY WAS PERFORMED ON PLAINTIFF, BUT HER GALLBLADDER HAD BEEN REMOVED YEARS BEFORE; THE DOCTORS APPARENTLY DID NOT REVIEW THE AVAIABLE MEDICAL RECORDS; THE RADIOLOGIST DID NOT DISCOVER THAT THE GALLBLADDER WAS ABSENT; THE DOCTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
STATEMENTS IN BOLD LETTERS ON THE BOTTOM OF EACH PAGE OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE, AS WELL AS A CONSUMER NOTICE PURSUANT TO 15 USC SECTION 1692G, DID NOT VIOLATE THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (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

THE BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING OR COMPLIANCE WITHE... THE REFEREE RELIED ON HEARSAY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OWED IN THIS FORECLOSURE...