Id. Cf. Badillo v. Tower Ins. Co., 709 N.E.2d 104, 105 (N.Y. 1999) (distinguishingRosario-Paolo and holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the insurance proceeds because the insurer did not have actual notice of the security agreement); accord Stacey L.A. Furs, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 655 N.Y.S.2d 90, 92 (N.Y.App.Div. 1997). Citigroup stresses that it submitted a claim to IRI before the proceeds were paid and that should have put IRI on actual notice.

In that situation, the insurer's obligation is to preserve the proceeds for the rightful beneficiary. Id. Cf. Badillo v. Tower Ins. Co., 709 N.E.2d 104, 105 (N.Y. 1999) (distinguishingRosario-Paolo and holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the insurance proceeds because the insurer did not have actual notice of the security agreement); accord Stacey L.A. Furs, Inc. v. Lichtenstein, 655 N.Y.S.2d 90, 92 (N.Y.App.Div. 1997). Citigroup stresses that it submitted a claim to IRI before the proceeds were paid and that should have put IRI on actual notice.