You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE INSURER DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM UNTIL 23 MONTHS...

ALTHOUGH THE INSURER DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM UNTIL 23 MONTHS AFTER THE CAR ACCIDENT, IT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY AND DID NOT COMMENCE A TIMELY INVESTIGATION OF THE CLAIM; THE DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the insurer (Utica) did not make a timely disclaimer of coverage in this car accident case. Although the insurer did not receive notice of the claim from the insured (Kassie) until 23 months after the accident, it was not prejudiced by that delay and failed to promptly investigate the claim when notice was received:

Utica first received notice of the SUM claim on May 5, 2017, just less than 23 months after the subject accident. Utica’s representative testified at the hearing that, despite the apparent untimeliness of this notice, Utica did not disclaim coverage upon receiving the May 5, 2017 letter because it did not at that time face any specific deadline to take action, so it had not yet been prejudiced by the untimely notice. However, on June 26, 2017, Utica received a letter from Kassie requesting consent to settle with the tortfeasor. Utica was required to respond to the letter requesting consent to settle within 30 days … . Utica’s representative testified at the hearing that it disclaimed coverage after receiving the June 26, 2017 letter, since at that point it was prejudiced by the untimeliness of the notice of claim because it could not complete its investigation before the deadline to respond to the June 26, 2017 letter.

However, Utica failed to present any evidence that upon receipt of the notice of claim it began fulfilling its “duty to promptly and diligently investigate the claim” … . Thus, Utica cannot reasonably claim that it was prejudiced by the untimely notice of claim based on its receipt over seven weeks later of the request from Kassie for consent to settle. Notably, Utica did not claim that it would have been unable to adequately investigate the SUM claim in time to respond to the request for consent to settle even if it had promptly commenced such an investigation upon receiving the notice of claim. Matter of Utica Natl. Ins. of Tex v Kassie, 2022 NY Slip Op 00867, Second Dept 2-9-22​

 

You might also like
A PARTY’S FAILURE TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT RENDERED THE MEMORANDUM IMPROPERLY RECORDED AND FAILED TO GIVE PRIORITY TO A CLAIM TO THE PROPERTY.
ALLEGATION THAT FIREFIGHTERS TOLD PLAINTIFFS THE FIRE WAS EXTINGUISHED AND IT WAS SAFE TO REENTER WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT; THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE FIREFIGHTERS TURNED OFF THE WATER AND LEFT, AFTER WHICH THE BUILDING BURNED TO THE GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
CORPORATE OFFICER WHO SIGNED THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CORPORATION, THEREFORE THE ATTEMPT TO ADD AN UNTIMELY FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER WAS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
THE TERMS OF THE LEASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO MAKE NONSTRUCTURAL FLOOR REPAIRS; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Present During Exchange Between Judge and Juror Which Resulted in Disqualification of Juror/Judge Should Have Disclosed Reason for Disqualification
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW WHICH STEP SHE SLIPPED AND FELL FROM, THERE WAS EVIDENCE ALL THE STEPS WERE UNLEVEL AND SLOPING; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRWAY WAS LATENT AND NOT DISCOVERABLE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Recommencement of A Dismissed Action Pursuant to CPLR 205 (a) Not Allowed Where Prior Action Was Dismissed for Neglect to Prosecute
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF 30 POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 9; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE; HAD THE PEOPLE KNOWN DEFENDANT WAS PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE THEY WOULD HAVE SOUGHT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION (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 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’... FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO HOLD...