Sputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co.

32 Citing cases

  1. Daimler Chrysler Ins. Co. v. Keller

    164 A.D.3d 1209 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 7 times

    We note that the issue has been fully briefed by the plaintiff and RLI. RLI established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it based upon CFC's failure to provide timely notice of the occurrence and suit. "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’ " ( 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, quoting 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 ; seeSputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Natl. Ins. Co. , 62 A.D.3d 689, 689, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428 ). This rule applies to excess carriers as well as primary carriers (seeAmerican Home Assur. Co. v. International. Ins. Co. , 90 N.Y.2d 433, 443, 661 N.Y.S.2d 584, 684 N.E.2d 14 ). "[A] justifiable lack of knowledge of insurance coverage may excuse a delay in reporting an occurrence" ( Winstead v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist. , 201 A.D.2d 721, 723, 608 N.Y.S.2d 487 ; seeAlbano–Plotkin v. Travelers Ins. Co. , 101 A.D.3d 657, 658, 955 N.Y.S.2d 612 ).

  2. Aspen Ins. Uk Ltd. v. Nieto

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1449 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    In general, whether there existed a good faith belief that the injured party would not seek to hold the insured liable, and whether that belief was reasonable, are questions of fact for the fact-finder (see Ponok Realty Corp. v United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 AD3d at 597; C.C.R. Realty of Dutchess v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1 AD3d at 305; Genova v Regal Mar. Indus., 309 AD2d at 734). Summary judgment may be granted in favor of the insurer only if the evidence, construing all inferences in favor of the insured, establishes as a matter of law that the insured's belief in nonliability was unreasonable or in bad faith (see Ponok Realty Corp. v United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 AD3d at 597; Sputnik Rest. Corp. v United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 689, 689-690; 120 Whitehall Realty Assoc., LLC v Hermitage Ins. Co., 40 AD3d at 721; Genova v Regal Mar. Indus., 309 AD2d at 734). Here, the plaintiff, an insurer, moved for summary judgment declaring that it is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendants Rey J. Nieto and 141-12 84th Drive Realty, LLC (hereinafter the insured defendants), in an underlying personal injury action pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County.

  3. Lancer Ins. Co. v. Super Value, Inc.

    96 A.D.3d 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for the entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff is not obligated to defend or indemnify the defendant Super Value, Inc., in the underlying action. The plaintiff established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it properly disclaimed coverage on the ground of late notice of the underlying accident ( see Ciampa 21, LLC v. QBE Ins. Corp., 81 A.D.3d 586, 915 N.Y.S.2d 871;Lobosco v. Best Buy, Inc., 80 A.D.3d 728, 731–732, 915 N.Y.S.2d 305;Bigman Bros., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 73 A.D.3d 1110, 1112, 904 N.Y.S.2d 439;Sputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428;St. James Mech., Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance, 44 A.D.3d 1030, 1032, 845 N.Y.S.2d 83;Felix v. Pinewood Bldrs., Inc., 30 A.D.3d 459, 461, 818 N.Y.S.2d 119;Jordan Constr. Prods. Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 14 A.D.3d 655, 656, 789 N.Y.S.2d 298).

  4. Konig v. Hermitage Ins. Co.

    93 A.D.3d 643 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 19 times

    As such, the injured person “ ‘is not to be charged vicariously with the insured's delay’ ” ( id. at 704, 806 N.Y.S.2d 720, quoting Lauritano v. American Fid. Fire Ins. Co., 3 A.D.2d 564, 568, 162 N.Y.S.2d 553, affd. 4 N.Y.2d 1028, 177 N.Y.S.2d 530, 152 N.E.2d 546). “However, where an injured party fails to exercise the independent right to notify the insurer of the occurrence, a disclaimer issued to an insured for failure to satisfy the notice requirement of the policy will be effective as against the injured party as well” ( Maldonado v. C.L.–M.I. Props., Inc., 39 A.D.3d 822, 823, 835 N.Y.S.2d 335; see Viggiano v. Encompass Ins. Company/Fireman's Ins. Co. of Newark, N.J., 6 A.D.3d 695, 775 N.Y.S.2d 533; see also Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Alvarado, 84 A.D.3d 1354, 1355, 923 N.Y.S.2d 717; Sputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689, 690, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428).

  5. Fine Line Builders & Remodelers, Inc. v. Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co.

    90 A.D.3d 702 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs. The defendant, Atlantic Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Atlantic), established, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that it properly disclaimed coverage on the ground of late notice of the underlying accident ( see Ciampa 21, LLC v. QBE Ins. Corp., 81 A.D.3d 586, 915 N.Y.S.2d 871; Lobosco v. Best Buy, Inc., 80 A.D.3d 728, 915 N.Y.S.2d 305; Bigman Bros., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 73 A.D.3d 1110, 1112, 904 N.Y.S.2d 439; Sputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Nat. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428; St. James Mech., Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance, 44 A.D.3d 1030, 1032, 845 N.Y.S.2d 83; Felix v. Pinewood Bldrs., Inc., 30 A.D.3d 459, 818 N.Y.S.2d 119; Jordan Constr. Prods. Corp. v Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 14 A.D.3d 655, 789 N.Y.S.2d 298). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Bigman Bros., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 73 A.D.3d at 1112, 904 N.Y.S.2d 439; Sputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428). The plaintiff's claim that it had a reasonable, good faith belief in nonliability was belied by its failure to inquire into the circumstances of the accident at issue in the underlying action ( see 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; Hanson v. Turner Constr. Co., 70 A.D.3d 641, 897 N.Y.S.2d 116; York Specialty Food, Inc. v. Towers Ins. Co. of

  6. Bigman Brothers, Inc. v. QBE Insurance

    73 A.D.3d 1110 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 12 times

    Where an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given "as soon as practicable," notice must be given within a reasonable time in view of all of the circumstances ( Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 NY3d 742, 743; see Ponok Realty Corp. v United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 AD3d 596, 597; 120 Whitehall Realty Assoc., LLC v Hermitage Ins. Co., 40 AD3d 719, 721; Genova v Regal Mar. Indus., 309 AD2d 733, 734). "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' "( Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 NY3d at 743, quoting Argo Corp. v Greater NY Mut. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 332, 339; see Ponok Realty Corp. v United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 AD3d at 597; Sputnik Rest. Corp. v United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 AD3d 689). "[Circumstances may exist that will excuse or explain the insured's delay in giving notice, such as a reasonable belief in nonliability" ( Genova v Regal Mar. Indus., 309 AD2d at 734; see Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 NY3d at 743-744; Ponok Realty Corp. v United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 AD3d at 597; C.C.R. Realty of Dutchess v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1 AD3d 304, 305). The burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of the excuse lies with the insured ( see Ponok Realty Corp. v United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 AD3d at 597; Genova v Regal Mar. Indus., 309 AD2d at 734).

  7. Mavrakis v. Preferred Contractors Ins. Co.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 33117 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    The requirement that an insured comply with the notice provision of an insurance policy operates as a condition precedent to coverage (see Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436, 440 [1972]; Quality Invs., Ltd. v Lloyd's London, England, 11 A.D.3d 443 [2d Dept 2004]). Absent a valid excuse for a delay in furnishing notice, failure to satisfy the notice requirement vitiates coverage (see Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d 742, 743 [2005]; Sputnik Rest. Corp. v United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689 [2d Dept 2009]; Ponok Realty Corp. v United Nat. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 A.D.3d 596, 597 [2d Dept 2010]). Here, PCIC's first notice of the Accident and Underlying Action

  8. Patrick v. 278 8th Assocs.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 6012 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Nevertheless, the indemnification clause required "prompt notice" of any claims or proceedings "for which the [i]ndemnitee requests indemnification," and defendants did not give prompt notice (see Deso v London & Lancashire Indem. Co. of Am., 3 N.Y.2d 127, 129 [1957]; Sputnik Rest. Corp. v United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689, 689 [2d Dept 2009]). On the contrary, Gap did not receive notice of plaintiff's action until defendants commenced the third-party action a year and four months later.

  9. Plotkin v. Republic-Franklin Ins. Co.

    177 A.D.3d 790 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 11 times

    Where an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given "as soon as practicable," notice must be given within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances (seeGreat 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 ; Aspen Ins. UK Ltd. v. Nieto, 137 A.D.3d 720, 720, 27 N.Y.S.3d 52 ; Ponok Realty Corp. v. United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 A.D.3d 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’ " ( 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 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 ; seeSputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689, 689, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428 ).

  10. Ramlochan v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.

    150 A.D.3d 1166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    Where an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given "as soon as practicable," notice must be given within a reasonable time in view of all of the circumstances (see 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 ; Aspen Ins. UK Ltd. v. Nieto, 137 A.D.3d 720, 720, 27 N.Y.S.3d 52 ; Ponok Realty Corp. v. United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 A.D.3d 596, 597, 893 N.Y.S.2d 125 ; 120 Whitehall Realty Assoc., LLC v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 40 A.D.3d 719, 721, 835 N.Y.S.2d 715 ). "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’ " (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 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 Sputnik Rest. Corp. v. United Natl. Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 689, 689, 878 N.Y.S.2d 428 ). "However, circumstances may exist that will excuse or explain the insured's delay in giving notice, such as a reasonable belief in nonliability" (Genova v. Regal Mar. Indus., 309 A.D.2d 733, 734, 765 N.Y.S.2d 266 ; see Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 N.Y.3d at 743–744, 800 N.Y.S.2d 521, 833 N.E.2d 1196 ; Ponok Realty Corp. v. United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 A.D.3d at 597, 893 N.Y.S.2d 125 ; C.C.R. Realty of Dutchess v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 1 A.D.3d 304, 305, 766 N.Y.S.2d 856 ). It is the insured's burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of the excuse (see Bigman Bros., Inc. v. QBE Ins. Corp., 73 A.D.3d 1110, 1111, 904 N.Y.S.2d 439 ; Ponok Realty Corp. v. United Natl. Specialty Ins. Co., 69 A.D.3d at 597, 893 N.Y.S.2d 125 ; Genova v. Regal Mar. Indus., 309 A.D.2d at 734, 765 N.Y.S.2d 266 ).