EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Zuckerman
| Decision Date | 13 January 2003 |
| Citation | 753 N.Y.S.2d 128,301 A.D.2d 493 |
| Parties | EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>JOSHUA ZUCKERMAN et al., Respondents, and<BR>PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the motions are granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that neither the plaintiff Eagle Insurance Company nor the defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant Joshua Zuckerman with respect to the action entitled Sherry v Zuckerman, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, under Index No. 398-CV-01629.
In June 1996 the defendant Joshua Zuckerman was involved in an automobile accident with Patricia Sherry and Robert F. Sherry. Zuckerman reported the accident to his insurance broker, the defendant James McLean, who in turn notified Zuckerman's insurer, the plaintiff Eagle Insurance Company (hereinafter Eagle). In May 1997 McLean changed Zuckerman's carrier to the defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Progressive). The Progressive policy expired in May 1998.
In August 1998 the Sherrys, residents of Connecticut, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries against Zuckerman in the United District Court for the District of Connecticut. Shortly thereafter, a summons was served upon Zuckerman. McLean received the summons and faxed it to Progressive. Progressive investigated the claim. In December 1998 McLean received a motion by the Sherrys to hold Zuckerman in default, and forwarded it to Progressive. In January 1999 Progressive disclaimed coverage, claiming that the policy it previously had with Zuckerman was not in effect at the time of the accident. In June 1999 a judgment was entered against Zuckerman upon his default in appearing or answering. It is undisputed that Eagle did not receive notice of the Sherry action until February 2000.
Eagle instituted this declaratory judgment action to determine the rights and obligations of the parties. Thereafter, Progressive moved and Eagle cross-moved for summary judgment, each seeking a declaration that it did not have an obligation to defend or indemnify Zuckerman in the underlying action. The Supreme Court denied the motions. Progressive and Eagle separately appeal. We reverse.
Where an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given promptly, notice must be given within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances (see Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., v Hoffman, 56 NY2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGovern-Barbash Associates, LLC v. Everest Nat. Ins. Co.
...902, 293 N.E.2d 76; 120 Whitehall Realty Assoc., LLC v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 40 A.D.3d 719, 721, 835 N.Y.S.2d 715; Eagle Ins. Co. v. Zuckerman, 301 A.D.2d 493, 753 N.Y.S.2d 128). The insurer need not establish that it was prejudiced by the late notice, except in certain situations not applic......
-
Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sarris
...as one to four months were not within a reasonable period of time as a matter of law." (collecting cases)); Eagle Ins. Co. v. Zuckerman, 753 N.Y.S.2d 128, 129 (App. Div. 2003) (finding that an eighteen-month delay in providing notice was unreasonable as a matter of law where the policy at i......
-
Utica First Ins. Co. v. Vazquez
...” ( 120 Whitehall Realty Assoc., LLC v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 40 A.D.3d 719, 721, 835 N.Y.S.2d 715, quoting Eagle Ins. Co. v. Zuckerman, 301 A.D.2d 493, 495, 753 N.Y.S.2d 128). Absent a valid excuse for a delay in furnishing notice, failure to satisfy the notice requirement vitiates coverage ......
-
Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. N.Y. Merchants Protective Co.
...or indemnify insured parties for an accident that occurs while the insurer's policy is not in effect. See Eagle Ins. Co v. Zuckerman, 753 N.Y.S.2d 128, 129-30 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). One way in which automobile policy coverage can be terminated is through transfer of title to the covered veh......