You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURED’S 17-MONTH DELAY IN NOTIFYING INSURER...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSURED’S 17-MONTH DELAY IN NOTIFYING INSURER OF THE OCCURRENCE WAS BASED UPON A GOOD FAITH BELIEF OF NONLIABILITY.

The Second Department determined the insured defendants had raised a question of fact whether a 17-month delay in notifying the plaintiff insurer of the “occurrence” was based upon a good-faith belief of nonliability. The court explained the relevant law:

Where, as here, an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given “as soon as practicable,” notice must be given within a reasonable time in view of all of the circumstances … . “However, circumstances may exist that will excuse or explain the insured's delay in giving notice, such as a reasonable belief in nonliability” … . It is the insured's burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of the excuse … .

In general, whether there existed a good faith belief that the injured party would not seek to hold the insured liable, and whether that belief was reasonable, are questions of fact for the fact-finder … . Summary judgment may be granted in favor of the insurer only if the evidence, construing all inferences in favor of the insured, establishes as a matter of law that the insured's belief in nonliability was unreasonable or in bad faith … .

… The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the insured defendants were notified of the injured party's workers' compensation claim approximately 17 months before they notified the plaintiff of the occurrence … . Since the subject insurance policies were issued in 2008, prior to the amendment to Insurance Law § 3420 (for policies issued after January 17, 2009), the plaintiff did not have to show that it was prejudiced by the failure to provide timely notice in order to satisfy its prima facie burden … .

In opposition, however, the insured defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the delay was reasonably based on a good-faith belief of nonliability … . Aspen Ins. UK Ltd. v Nieto, 2016 NY Slip Op 01449, 2nd Dept 3-2-16

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DELAY IN NOTIFIYING INSURER BASED UPON GOOD FAITH BELIEF OF NONLIABILITY)/NOTICE OF OCCURRENCE (INSURANCE LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DELAY IN NOTIFIYING INSURER BASED UPON GOOD FAITH BELIEF OF NONLIABILITY)

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT FROM AN ACCIDENT REPORT AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT). ​
Verdict May Not Be Set Aside Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 330.30 On a (Waivable) Ground Not Preserved by Objection at Trial
AN ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT LICENSED IN NEW YORK CITY CANNOT SUE FOR PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE IN THE CITY AND CANNOT FORECLOSE ON RELATED MECHANIC’S LIENS (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR LOST PROFITS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “LOST PROFITS” AS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS WAS ENTERED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Regulation of Use of Vacant Wetlands Constituted a Regulatory Taking—Analytical Criteria Explained
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT PROVE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON BLACK ICE WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Submit to a Psychological Test Should Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Placed Her Mental Condition In Issue and Did Not Demonstrate the Test Was Invasive or Harmful

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

LANDSCAPER AND ITS INSURER STRICTLY LIABLE FOR OIL DISCHARGE ON PLAINTIFFS’... CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT;...