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
AN INSPECTION OF THE BLACKTOP FIVE TO SEVEN WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED IN A HOLE AND FELL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTOR’S REPEATED USE OF THE TERM ‘STATUTORY RAPE’ TO GIVE THE JURY THE MISIMPRESSION THE VICTIM OF THE SHOOTING IN THIS MANSLAUGHTER CASE HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT RAPE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS RELYING ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AT THE PRE-ANSWER STAGE BASED UPON A FINDING THE PLAINTIFF MAY NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE DECLARATORY RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SECOND DEGREE AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ARE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS (SECOND DEPT).
RPAPL 1306 REQUIRES INFORMATION TO BE FILED WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF THE MAILING OF THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE FILING IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; HERE THE FILING WAS EIGHT DAYS LATE, REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Who Was Not Served Because Current Address Not on File with Secretary of State Entitled to Vacate Default Judgment Pursuant to CPLR 317
RESTRAINING A PERSON FOR A FEW SECONDS WHILE ATTEMPTING TO PULL THAT PERSON INTO A VEHICLE DOES NOT SATISFY THE CRITERIA FOR KIDNAPPING (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (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 © 2026 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...