Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Worthy

• Decision Date: 11 January 2001
• Parties: (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) Travelers Indemnity Company, appellant, v. John Worthy III, et al., defendants, Kareem McDonald, etc., et al., respondents. 2000-00307 Argued -
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 400

721 N.Y.S.2d 400 (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001)

Travelers Indemnity Company, appellant, v. John Worthy III, et al., defendants, Kareem McDonald, etc., et al., respondents.

2000-00307

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Argued - January 11, 2001

March 5, 2001

O'Brien & Mayr, Rockville, N.Y. (Nicholas P. Calabria of counsel), for appellant.

Gasior & Lazaroni, New York, N.Y. (Brian C. McSharry of counsel), for respondents.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and HOWARD MILLER, JJ.

In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify the defendants John Worthy III, Patricia Worthy, and Michael Worthy in an underlying action entitled McDonald v Excellent, pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, under Index No. 3667/95, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated September 21, 1999, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend and indemnify the Worthy defendants in the underlying action.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the cross motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify the Worthy defendants in the underlying action.

Where an insurance policy, such as the one in this case, requires an insured to provide notice of an accident or loss as soon as practicable, such notice must be provided within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances (see, Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Hoffman, 56 N.Y.2d 799). Providing an insurer with timely notice of a potential claim is a condition precedent, and thus "[a]bsent a valid excuse, a failure to satisfy the notice requirement vitiates the policy" (Security Mut. Ins. v Acker-Fitzsimons, 31 N.Y.2d 436, 440). While a good-faith belief of nonliabiity may excuse or explain a failure to give timely notice, the insured bears the burden of demonstrating that the delay in giving notice was reasonable (see, Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. v Mendez, 253 A.D.2d 790).

The plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the excuses offered by the plaintiffs insureds, John Worthy III, Patricia Worthy, and Michael Worthy (hereinafter the insureds), failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the one-year and three-month delay in...