From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cottone v. Vanguard Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1993
199 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 13, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the required notice of the subject occurrence was sent to the appellant as soon as it was practical to do so under the facts and circumstances of this case (see, Mighty Midgets v Centennial Ins. Co., 47 N.Y.2d 12). The record sufficiently demonstrates that the plaintiff possessed a good faith belief of nonliability. Therefore, his delay in informing the appellant of the subject occurrence is excusable under the circumstances (see, Empire City Subway Co. v Greater N Y Mut. Ins. Co., 35 N.Y.2d 8).

We reject the appellant's remaining contention (see, Fitzpatrick v American Honda Motor Co., 78 N.Y.2d 61, 63). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cottone v. Vanguard Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1993
199 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Cottone v. Vanguard Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN COTTONE, Respondent, v. VANGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, et…

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

Date published: Dec 13, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 298 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
606 N.Y.S.2d 1004

Citing Cases

Kim v. Maher

It is well settled that where an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given promptly,…

E.T. Nutrition Inc. v. Central Mut. Ins. Co.

However, "[w]hen the facts of an occurrence are such that the insured acting in good faith would not…