Hazen v. OTSEGO MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.
| Decision Date | 17 September 2001 |
| Citation | 730 N.Y.S.2d 156,286 A.D.2d 708 |
| Parties | APRIL HAZEN et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>OTSEGO MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (3) provides that a notice of claim to an insurer may be made by the insured, the injured person, or any other claimant. Insurance Law § 3420 (d) provides that an insurer may disclaim coverage by giving a written notice of the disclaimer as soon as reasonably possible. However, when an insurer disclaims coverage, "the notice of disclaimer must promptly apprise the claimant with a high degree of specificity of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated" (General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862, 864). The defendant's disclaimer of coverage was based only on its insured's failure to notify it of the claim. The disclaimer, therefore, was not effective against the plaintiffs, the injured parties, who gave notice of the claim, and the defendant is now estopped from raising the plaintiffs' allegedly late notice in the instant action as a ground for disclaiming coverage (see, Legion Ins. Co. v Weiss, 282 AD2d 576; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Gath, 265 AD2d 805; Eagle Ins. Co. v Ortega, 251 AD2d 282).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loeffler v. Sirius Am. Ins. Co.
...with a high degree of specificity of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated’ ” ( Hazen v. Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 286 A.D.2d 708, 709, 730 N.Y.S.2d 156, quoting General Acc. Ins. Group v. Cirucci, 46 N.Y.2d 862, 864, 414 N.Y.S.2d 512, 387 N.E.2d 223). Here, contrary ......
-
NGM Ins. Co. v. CHB Constr., Inc.
...with a high degree of specificity of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated' " (Hazen v. Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 286 A.D.2d 708,709,730N.Y.S.2d 156 [2d Dept., 2001]). Here, contrary to plaintiff's contention, the above referenced disclaimer of coverage was based only......
-
Autoone Ins. Co. v. Sarvis
...N.Y.S.2d 87; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Joseph, 287 A.D.2d 724, 724–725, 732 N.Y.S.2d 66; Hazen v. Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 286 A.D.2d 708, 709, 730 N.Y.S.2d 156; Vanegas v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 282 A.D.2d 671, 671, 723 N.Y.S.2d 516; Eagle Ins. Co. v. Ortega, 25......
-
Henner v. Everdry Mktg. and Mgmt., Inc.
...from relying upon that defense ( see Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 6 A.D.3d 534, 535, 774 N.Y.S.2d 435; Hazen v. Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 286 A.D.2d 708, 730 N.Y.S.2d 156; Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 265 A.D.2d 805, 695 N.Y.S.2d 839), and the court erred in granting Gemini's motion based ......