You are here: / / Five-Month Delay in Notifying Carrier Not Justified by Insured’s Belief L...
,

Five-Month Delay in Notifying Carrier Not Justified by Insured’s Belief Lawsuit Was Fraudulent

The Third Department determined, as a matter of law, that defendant’s failure to notify the insurance carrier of a personal injury lawsuit for nearly five months justified the carrier’s denial of coverage.  The court noted that defendant’s belief the lawsuit was fraudulent was not a “good-faith belief of nonliability;”

“Where a policy of liability insurance requires that notice of an occurrence be given ‘as soon as practicable,’ such notice must be accorded the carrier within a reasonable period of time. The insured’s failure to satisfy the notice requirement constitutes a failure to comply with a condition precedent which, as a matter of law, vitiates the contract” … .  Although “there may be circumstances where the insured’s failure to give timely notice is excusable, . . . [t]he insured bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the proffered excuse” … .  In this regard, the reasonableness of the insured’s excuse – although generally presenting a question of fact for a jury … – “may be determined as a matter of law where the evidence, construing all inferences in favor of the insured, establishes that the belief was unreasonable or in bad faith” … .

Here, defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon plaintiff’s nearly five-month delay (August 2008 to January 2009) in notifying defendant of the underlying personal injury action …, and plaintiff failed to tender sufficient proof to raise a question of fact as to the reasonableness of such delay.  Plaintiff’s personal belief that the guest’s lawsuit was fraudulent is not the equivalent of “a good-faith belief of nonliability” … . Vale…v Vermont Mutual Insurance Group, 515999, 3rd Dept 12-5-13

 

You might also like
PARTIES’ CONDUCT AFTER THE PURPORTED TERMINATION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENT COULD INDICATE THE PARTIES INTENDED THE CONTRACT TO CONTINUE (IMPLIED CONTRACT), DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT).
Exceptions to “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies” Requirement Not Applicable—“Futility” and “Irreparable Harm” Not Demonstrated
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ENFORCEABLE CONTRACT TO INSTALL SOLAR PANELS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACCOUNT STATED CAUSE OF ACTION BASED ON INVOICES SENT TO DEFENDANT FOR THE SOLAR PANELS (THIRD DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE GRAND JURY IN THIS DRUNK-DRIVING-ACCIDENT CASE SUPPORTED THE TWO COUNTS OF DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE ASSAULT STEMMING FROM INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE TWO PASSENGERS; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THOSE COUNTS (THIRD DEPT).
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED DEFENDANT PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE STRUCTURE-LOSS (FIRE-DAMAGE) CLAIM; THE PARTIES WERE NOT MADE AWARE OF THAT POSSIBILITY PRIOR TO THE RULING (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant Could Properly Subpoena Documents Which May Support a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment in the Interest of Justice/There Was Evidence of a Policy Not to Prosecute Native Americans for Tax Law Violations Relating to Cigarettes

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

Commissioner of Labor Can Not Be Sued for Her Exercise of Discretionary Judgment... Comparative Negligence Not Available in Labor Law 240 (1) Action—Claimant...