From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lapicola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1992
184 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

June 16, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.).


It is well established that an insurer will be estopped from disclaiming coverage based on a policy exclusion where it has unreasonably delayed in notifying the insured of its intent to do so (Zappone v. Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d 131). Here, disclaimer of uninsured motorist benefits on the ground that respondent Lapicola settled with other tortfeasors without petitioner Liberty's consent was raised for the first time in a memorandum of law dated September 6, 1991, well over one year from a date when the insurer had access to sufficient information to alert it to the necessity of disclaiming based upon this particular exclusion in the policy. This delay of over one year in disclaiming was unreasonable as a matter of law (Farmers Fire Ins. Co. v. Brighton, 142 A.D.2d 547, 548).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kassal and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lapicola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 16, 1992
184 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lapicola

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. THOMAS…

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

Date published: Jun 16, 1992

Citations

184 A.D.2d 322 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
584 N.Y.S.2d 834

Citing Cases

Westchester Ins. v. Imperiale

However, it was not until November 1992 when petitioners moved for a stay of arbitration, that they included…