You are here: / / INSURED’S FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF THE ACTION AGAINST...

INSURED’S FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED RELIEVED THE INSURER OF ANY OBLIGATION TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED.

The Second Department determined the insured’s delay in notifying the insurer of the action against the insured relieved the insurer of the obligation to satisfy the judgment against the insured. The Second Department further noted that the delay in disclaiming coverage was justified by the insurer’s need to investigate:

​

Where 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 … . “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'” …. “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 … .

Here, the defendant Scottsdale Insurance Comp any (hereinafter Scottsdale) established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Scottsdale demonstrated that its insured knew of the occurrence immediately and received a letter of representation from the plaintiff’s attorney in June 2008, but waited until September 25, 2009, to notify Scottsdale … . Since the subject policy was issued prior to the amendment to Insurance Law § 3420, Scottsdale was not required to show that it was prejudiced by the failure to give timely notice in order to satisfy its prima facie burden … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the insured’s delay in notifying Scottsdale was reasonable based upon its good faith belief in nonliability … . Ramlochan v Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04159, 2nd Dept 5-24-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (INSURED’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY INSURER OF THE ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED RELIEVED THE INSURER OF ANY OBLIGATION TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH A FORECLOSURE ACTION USUALLY ACCELERATES THE DEBT AND STARTS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CLOCK, HERE THE DEFENDANTS-BORROWERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION SOUGHT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT DUE (THE 2009 COMPLAINT WAS NOT SUBMITTED); THEREFORE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTANT ACTION IS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Cannot Be the Only Link between the Defendant and the Forum/Defendant’s “Minimum Contacts” with New York Not Demonstrated
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Initial Broker Entitled to Commission
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR FOUR YEARS; THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED WITH NO NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION WAS MERITORIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, THE WEAPON WAS SEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF A PASSENGER IN THE CAR (SECOND DEPT).
MERE DENIAL OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN A FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT THAT THE PLAINTIFF IS THE OWNER AND HOLDER OF THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ASSERT THE DEFENSE THAT THE PLAINTIFF LACKS STANDING, PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY OVERRULED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS ICY-STEP SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WHO WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THE LEASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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

ANY GROUND FOR A DISCLAIMER NOT MENTIONED IN THE DISCLAIMER LETTER IS WAIVE... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION...