Schulman v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2006-00637.
Decision Date | 22 May 2007 |
Docket Number | 2006-00637. |
Parties | MARTIN SCHULMAN et al., Respondents, v. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Insurance Law § 3420 (d) requires an insurer to provide a written disclaimer "as soon as is reasonably possible." The reasonableness of the delay is measured from the time when the insurer "has sufficient knowledge of facts entitling it to disclaim, or knows that it will disclaim coverage" (First Fin. Ins. Co. v Jetco Contr. Corp., 1 NY3d 64, 66 [2003]). The insurer bears the burden of justifying any delay (id. at 69). "While Insurance Law § 3420 (d) speaks only of giving notice `as soon as is reasonably possible,' investigation into issues affecting an insurer's decision whether to disclaim coverage obviously may excuse delay in notifying the policyholder of a disclaimer" (id. at 69). The failure of an insured to timely notify the insurer of a claim does not excuse the insurer's failure to timely disclaim coverage (see Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v Gatesington Equities, 204 AD2d 419 [1994]).
In the instant case, the defendant's submission of an unsworn letter of its claims analyst, containing hearsay statements of the plaintiff Myron Schulman, who was one of the defendants in the underlying personal injury action, failed to establish that its delay in issuing a disclaimer was reasonable under the circumstances (see First Fin. Ins. Co. v Jetco Contr. Co., supra; Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028 [1979]). Moreover, the plaintiffs demonstrated that the defendant failed to promptly disclaim coverage for the underlying personal injury action within a reasonable amount of time after learning of facts or circumstances which might provide a reasonable basis for a disclaimer. The Supreme Court thus properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment.
Where, as here, the insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Golden Ins. Co. v. Ingrid House, Inc.
...investigation." Id. (citing Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Uribe , 45 A.D.3d 661, 845 N.Y.S.2d 434 (2007) ; Schulman v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. , 40 A.D.3d 957, 836 N.Y.S.2d 682 (2007) ).2. ApplicationThere is no genuine question of fact here that the relief against coverage for defense and li......
-
McAlpin v. Rli Ins. Co.
...Law § 3420(d), waives its affirmative defense of late notice") (internal citations omitted); Schulman v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 40 A.D.3d 957, 958, 836 N.Y.S.2d 682, 684 (2d Dep't 2007) ("The failure of an insured to timely notify the insurer of a claim does not excuse the insurer's failur......
-
Hunter Roberts Const. Group, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co.
...investigation ( see Quincy Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Uribe, 45 A.D.3d 661, 845 N.Y.S.2d 434 [2007]; Schulman v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 40 A.D.3d 957, 836 N.Y.S.2d 682 [2007] ). In disclaiming coverage, Arch asserted that Hunter failed to notify Arch "as soon as practicable" of the occurrence i......
-
105 Street Associates LLC v. Greenwich Ins. Co.
...the delay ... was reasonably related to its completion of a thorough and diligent investigation." Schulman v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 40 A.D.3d 957, 836 N.Y.S.2d 682, 684 (2d Dep't 2007). In its motion to dismiss, 105 Associates offers case law suggesting that delays of thirty days or more ......