Opinion
2011-11-1
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, INC., respondent,v.TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, appellant.
Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y. (Sarah J. Delaney and Joanna Roberto of counsel), for appellant.David S. Klausner, PLLC, White Plains, N.Y. (David S. Klausner and Evelyn Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Buffalo, N.Y. (Sarah J. Delaney and Joanna Roberto of counsel), for appellant.David S. Klausner, PLLC, White Plains, N.Y. (David S. Klausner and Evelyn Miller of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff, Columbia University Press, Inc., in an underlying action entitled George Balloutine v. Columbia University Press, pending in the Supreme Court, New York County, under Index No. 11425/07, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated June 29, 2010, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify the plaintiff in the underlying action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Where, as here, a policy of liability insurance requires that notice of an occurrence be given “as soon as practicable,” such notice must be given to the carrier within a reasonable period of time ( see Sorbara Constr. Corp. v. AIU Ins. Co., 11 N.Y.3d 805, 806, 868 N.Y.S.2d 573, 897 N.E.2d 1054; Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d 742, 743, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196; Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Acker–Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436, 441, 340 N.Y.S.2d 902, 293 N.E.2d 76). With respect to policies issued before January 17, 2009 ( see Insurance Law § 3420 [c][2][A] ), as the subject policy was, an insurer could disclaim coverage when the insured failed to satisfy the notice condition, without regard to whether the insurer was prejudiced by the insured's failure to satisfy such condition ( see Zimmerman v. Peerless Ins. Co., 85 A.D.3d 1021, 1023, 926 N.Y.S.2d 124; Ponok Realty Corp. v. United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 A.D.3d 596, 596–597, 893 N.Y.S.2d 125). The insured's failure to satisfy the notice requirement constitutes “a failure to comply with a condition precedent which, as a matter of law, vitiates the contract” ( Argo Corp. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 N.Y.3d 332, 339, 794 N.Y.S.2d 704, 827 N.E.2d 762; see Sorbara Constr. Corp. v. AIU Ins. Co., 11 N.Y.3d at 806, 868 N.Y.S.2d 573, 897 N.E.2d 1054; Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d at 743, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196; Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Acker–Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436, 440, 340 N.Y.S.2d 902, 293 N.E.2d 76). However, “there may be circumstances that excuse a failure to give timely notice, such as where the insured has ‘a good-faith belief of nonliability,’ provided that belief is reasonable” ( Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d at 743, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196, quoting Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Acker–Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d at 441, 340 N.Y.S.2d 902, 293 N.E.2d 76; see White v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 955, 957, 598 N.Y.S.2d 759, 615 N.E.2d 216; Zimmerman v. Peerless Ins. Co., 85 A.D.3d at 1023–1024, 926 N.Y.S.2d 124; Ponok Realty Corp. v. United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 A.D.3d at 597, 893 N.Y.S.2d 125). The insured bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of such excuse ( see Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d at 743, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196; White v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d at 957, 598 N.Y.S.2d 759, 615 N.E.2d 216;
Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Acker– Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d at 440, 340 N.Y.S.2d 902, 293 N.E.2d 76), which is ordinarily an issue of fact and not one of law ( see Argentina v. Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 748, 750, 631 N.Y.S.2d 125, 655 N.E.2d 166; Deso v. London & Lancashire Indem. Co. of Am., 3 N.Y.2d 127, 129, 164 N.Y.S.2d 689, 143 N.E.2d 889; St. James Mech., Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance, 44 A.D.3d 1030, 1031, 845 N.Y.S.2d 83).
Here, the defendant made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the plaintiff's approximately eight-month delay in notifying the defendant of the underlying incident ( see Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d 742, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196; Argentina v. Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 86 N.Y.2d at 750, 631 N.Y.S.2d 125, 655 N.E.2d 166; Zimmerman v. Peerless Ins. Co., 85 A.D.3d 1021, 926 N.Y.S.2d 124; McGovern–Barbash Assoc., LLC v. Everest Natl. Ins. Co., 79 A.D.3d 981, 983, 914 N.Y.S.2d 218; Evangelos Car Wash, Inc. v. Utica First Ins. Co., 45 A.D.3d 727, 845 N.Y.S.2d 458; 120 Whitehall Realty Assoc., LLC v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 40 A.D.3d 719, 835 N.Y.S.2d 715). However, in opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the delay was reasonably based on a good-faith belief of nonliability ( see 25th Ave., LLC v. Delos Ins. Co., 84 A.D.3d 781, 922 N.Y.S.2d 204; North Country Ins. Co. v. Jandreau, 50 A.D.3d 1429, 856 N.Y.S.2d 294; St. James Mech., Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance, 44 A.D.3d at 1031–1032, 845 N.Y.S.2d 83; Jordan Constr. Prods. Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 14 A.D.3d 655, 789 N.Y.S.2d 298; G.L.G. Contr. Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 215 A.D.2d 821, 822, 626 N.Y.S.2d 307; Triantafillou v. Colonial Coop. Ins. Co., 178 A.D.2d 925, 926, 578 N.Y.S.2d 792). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment declaring that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify the plaintiff in the underlying action.