US DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC. v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA
Decision Date | 12 October 1999 |
Citation | 265 A.D.2d 402,696 N.Y.S.2d 502 |
Parties | U.S. DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
S. Miller, J. P., Santucci, Sullivan and Florio, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that an issue of fact exists as to whether the defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (hereinafter National Union), was promptly notified of the incident or the lawsuit pursuant to the provisions of the policy (see, Winstead v Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 201 AD2d 721; White v City of New York, 81 NY2d 955). In addition, an issue of fact exists as to whether National Union held out the defendant Albiez Insurance Agency as its agent. While an insurance broker is the agent of the insured and "notice to the ordinary insurance broker is not notice to the liability carrier" (Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 NY2d 436, 442, n 3; see, Kamyr, Inc. v St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 152 AD2d 62, 65), a broker will be held to have acted as the insurer's agent where "`[t]here [is some] evidence of * * * action on the insurer's part, or facts from which a general authority to represent the insurer may be inferred'" (see, Matco Prods. v Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 104 AD2d 793, 796; see also, Ford v Unity Hosp., 32 NY2d 464, 473; Jet Setting...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bicounty Brokerage Corp.. v. Burlington Ins. Co.
...1094, 803 N.Y.S.2d 606; Rendeiro v. State–Wide Ins. Co., 8 A.D.3d 253, 777 N.Y.S.2d 323; U.S. Delivery Sys. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 265 A.D.2d 402, 696 N.Y.S.2d 502). Moreover, Burlington failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of ......
-
Bennion v. Allstate Ins.
...such notice, however, if it is established that the broker was acting as the carrier's agent (see, U.S. Delivery Sys. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa, 265 A.D.2d 402, 402-403; Serravillo v Sterling Ins. Co., 261 A.D.2d 384, 385, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 758). To establish that t......
-
U.S. Delivery Systems, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.
...696 N.Y.S.2d 502 ... U.S. DELIVERY SYSTEMS, INC., appellant, ... NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., et al., respondents ... Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York ... Oct. 12, 1999 ... ...
-
Indian Country Inc. v. PA Lumbermens Mut. Ins.
...on the insurer's part or facts from which a general authority to represent the insurer may be inferred (see, U.S. Delivery Sys. v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 265 A.D.2d 402; Kamyr Inc. v St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 152 A.D.2d 62, 65-66). Because "[t]he agent cannot by his own acts im......
-
Chapter Thirty-Seven
...and Ronald A. Anderson, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, § 25:93 (2d ed. 1982)).[5337] . U.S. Delivery Sys. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 265 A.D.2d 402, 402–403, 696 N.Y.S.2d 502 (1999); Bennion v. Allstate Ins. Co., 284 A.D.2d 924, 925, 727 N.Y.S.2d 222 (4th Dep’t 2001).[5338] . U.S. Underwri......