From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. ITT Hartford Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1998
249 A.D.2d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 30, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.).


Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (b) to collect a default judgment entered against defendants' insured. Defendants, however, properly disclaimed coverage under the policy with their insured, which plaintiff now seeks to reach to satisfy its judgment, and plaintiff has failed to plead or prove a recurring failure by defendants constituting a deceptive business practice under General Business Law § 349 ( United Knitwear Co. v. North Sea Ins. Co., 203 A.D.2d 358), or an unfair claims settlement practice pursuant to the regulations promulgated to define such practices under Insurance Law § 2601 ( see, 11 NYCRR 216.0-216.11). We note, moreover, that these regulations do not give rise to a private right of action ( see, Newsom v. Republic Fin. Servs., 130 Misc.2d 780, 782-783). In addition, because plaintiff failed at the trial of this matter to demonstrate any actual prejudice flowing from defendant's untimely and purportedly defective notice of disclaimer, and inasmuch as the action does not involve circumstances triggering the applicability of Insurance Law § 3420 (d), plaintiff has failed to establish a basis upon which defendants might be estopped from relying upon their disclaimer ( see, Incorporated Vil. of Pleasantville v. Calvert Ins. Co., 204 A.D.2d 689; State of New York v. Ladd's Gas Sta., 198 A.D.2d 654).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. ITT Hartford Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 30, 1998
249 A.D.2d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. ITT Hartford Insurance

Case Details

Full title:AETNA CASUALTY SURETY COMPANY, Appellant, v. ITT HARTFORD INSURANCE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 30, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 241 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
672 N.Y.S.2d 310

Citing Cases

Sirignano v. Chicago Ins. Co.

However, the regulations cited by plaintiff, 11 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 216.5(a), 216.6, do not create any private…

Prospect Auto Sales & Repairs, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

As noted by State Farm, "the regulations promulgated to define such practices under Insurance Law § 2601 ....…