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
A HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Failed to Demonstrate the Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall (a Ramp Outside a Building) Was Open and Obvious as a Matter of Law—Summary Judgment Should Not Have Been Granted
IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION THE BANK MUST PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WHICH REQUIRES PROOF PAPERS WERE FILED WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS OF MAILING THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT; HERE THERE WAS NO PROOF WHEN THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED, SO THE PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1306 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS OUT ON A SATURDAY, PLAINTIFF HAS UNTIL THE FOLLOWING MONDAY TO COMMENCE THE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE PERSON WHO ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAW FIRM PLAINTIFF WORKED FOR; PLAINTIFF COULD RECOVER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM THE LAW FIRM AND DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY FROM THE OWNER, WHO WAS A COEMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IF THE CONDITION AMOUNTS TO A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR DISTRACTED, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR BRINGING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES (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 © 2025 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...