From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of N.Y. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Amer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 25, 2001
287 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

October 25, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered January 9, 2001, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment upon its claims for indemnification and attorneys' fees as against defendant insurer Investors Insurance Company of America, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Mordecai Newman, for plaintiff-respondent.

Ignatius John Melito, for defendants-appellants.

Before: Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Lerner, Marlow, JJ.


The three and one-half month delay of defendant Investors in disclaiming coverage was, on this record, unreasonable as a matter of law. The ground for the disclaimer, namely, the City's failure to provide timely notice of its claim, was plain from the face of the pleadings sent with the City's demand letter (see, City of New York v. N. Ins. Co. of New York, 284 A.D.2d 291, 292, 725 N.Y.S.2d 374, 375; cf., 2540 Assocs., Inc. v. Assicurazioni Generali, 271 A.D.2d 282, 283). Further, having covered this same claim on behalf of the City's co-insured, defendant Alliance for Progress, Investors is now equitably estopped from denying coverage to the City (Natl. Cas. Co. v. State Ins. Fund, 227 A.D.2d 115, 118, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 813).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

City of N.Y. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Amer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 25, 2001
287 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

City of N.Y. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Amer

Case Details

Full title:THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. INVESTORS INSURANCE COMPANY…

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

Date published: Oct 25, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 394 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 623

Citing Cases

Time Warner Cable v. Hyland Datacom Elec. Inc.

Under the circumstances, its delay in disclaiming coverage was unreasonable. ( See, City of York v. Investors…

Bovis Lend Lease LMB v. St. Paul Fire Mar.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiffs contend that since St. Paul has been defending Ruttura, but not…