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
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO SHOW THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ATTACHED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THAT TRADITIONAL SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS “IMPRACTICABLE;” SERVICE BY PUBLICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ELECTRICAL STUB UP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION; THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING PASSAGEWAYS TO BE KEPT CLEAR OF DEBRIS GENERALLY DO NOT APPLY TO AN OBSTRUCTION WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CONSTRUCTION; HERE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SAFETY MARKERS CALLING ATTENTION TO THE STUB UPS APPARENTLY BROUGHT THE FACTS WITHIN THE REACH OF THOSE “KEEP PASSAGEWAYS FREE OF DEBRIS” CODE PROVISIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WATER WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY DENIED.
Gaps in Treatment Precluded “Continuous Treatment Doctrine” in Medical Malpractice Suit—Action Time-Barred
THE VENUE DESIGNATION IN THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S WIFE, WAS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE NURSING HOME (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE PARENTAL ACCESS BY CONDITIONING ACCESS ON THE CONSENT OF THE CHILDREN (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...