Matter of New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Rafailova
Decision Date | 12 June 2007 |
Docket Number | 2006-05354.,2006-03039. |
Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 05279,840 N.Y.S.2d 358,41 A.D.3d 603 |
Parties | In the Matter of NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. VENIAMIN RAFAILOVA et al., Appellants. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.
An insurer may obtain a permanent stay of arbitration where it demonstrates that the claimant violated a condition precedent to coverage (see Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], 51 NY2d 1 [1980]; Matter of 3202 Owners Corp. [Billy Contrs., Inc.], 25 AD3d 715 [2006]; Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. [Magyar], 217 AD2d 954 [1995]). The insurer's motion, inter alia, "for an Order dismissing the demands for arbitration" was, in effect, an application to permanently stay arbitration on the ground that the claimants failed to comply with the cooperation clause of the automobile insurance policy, which required them, among other things, to submit to reasonable depositions and medical examinations, and to authorize the insurer to obtain medical records.
An unexcused and willful refusal to comply with disclosure requirements in an insurance policy is a material breach of the cooperation clause and precludes recovery on a claim (see Lentini Bros. Moving & Stor. Co. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 NY2d 835, 837 [1981]; Baerga v Transtate Ins. Co., 213 AD2d 217 [1995]; 2423 Mermaid Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 142 AD2d 124, 130-132 [1988]; Ausch v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 125 AD2d 43, 50 [1987]). Compliance with such a clause is a condition precedent to coverage, properly addressed by the court (see Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. Co.], supra; compare Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 NY3d 742 [2005]).
In order to establish breach of a cooperation clause, the insurer must show that the insured "engaged in an unreasonable and willful pattern of refusing to answer material and relevant questions or to supply material and relevant documents" (James & Charles Dimino Wholesale Seafood v Royal Ins. Co., 238 AD2d 379, 379 [1997], quoting Avarello v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 208 AD2d 483, 483 [1994]). An insured's duty to co-operate is satisfied by substantial compliance, and where a delay in compliance is neither lengthy...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SCW W. LLC v. Westport Ins. Corp.
...Shalita v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 266 A.D. 131, 41 N.Y.S.2d 507 (3d Dep't 1943); see also New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rafailov, 41 A.D.3d 603, 605, 840 N.Y.S.2d 358, 360–61 (2d Dep't 2007) (“An insured's duty to cooperate is satisfied by substantial compliance, and where a delay i......
-
Deluca v. RLI Ins. Co.
...a general matter, "[a]n insured's duty to cooperate is satisfied by substantial compliance" ( Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rafailov, 41 A.D.3d 603, 604–605, 840 N.Y.S.2d 358 ). "[M]ere efforts by the insurer and mere inaction on the part of the insured, without more, are i......
-
Roc Nation LLC v. HCC Int'l Ins. Co.
...led courts in rare circumstances to preclude the entirety of an insured's claim. See, e.g., N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire. Ins. Co. v. Rafailov , 41 A.D.3d 603, 604–05, 840 N.Y.S.2d 358 (2d Dep't 2007) (insured defied court-ordered disclosure demands and "failed to offer a satisfactory explanation" ......
-
Ids Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stracar Med. Servs., P.C.
...v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 N.Y.2d at 837, 440 N.Y.S.2d 174, 422 N.E.2d 819;Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Rafailov, 41 A.D.3d 603, 604–605, 840 N.Y.S.2d 358;Bulzomi v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 A.D.2d at 878–879, 459 N.Y.S.2d 861;Argento v. Aet......