Alvarez v. Allstate Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alvarez v. Allstate Insurance

5 A.D.3d 270, 773 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 23, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 270 (Alvarez v. Allstate Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvarez v. Allstate Insurance, 5 A.D.3d 270, 773 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J), entered August 6, 2003, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant’s cross motion denied and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $32,175 plus interest from September 13, 2002, the date of entry of the underlying default judgment.

An insurer’s unexplained failure to provide notice as soon as is reasonably possible precludes an effective disclaimer even though the policyholder’s own notice of the incident to its insurer is untimely (see First Fin. Ins. Co. v Jetco Contr. Corp., 1 NY3d 64 [2003]; Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028, 1029 [1979]). Here, defendant’s eight-month delay in disclaiming coverage is unreasonable as a matter of law (see First Fin. Ins., supra; Hartford Ins., supra), and hence plaintiff should have been granted summary judgment in the amount of the underlying default judgment. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J), entered August 6, 2003, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant’s cross motion denied and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $32,175 plus interest from September 13, 2002, the date of entry of the underlying default judgment.

An insurer’s unexplained failure to provide notice as soon as is reasonably possible precludes an effective disclaimer even though the policyholder’s own notice of the incident to its insurer is untimely (see First Fin. Ins. Co. v Jetco Contr. Corp., 1 NY3d 64 [2003]; Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028, 1029 [1979]). Here, defendant’s eight-month delay in disclaiming coverage is unreasonable as a matter of law (see First Fin. Ins., supra; Hartford Ins., supra), and hence plaintiff should have been granted summary judgment in the amount of the underlying default judgment. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 270, 773 N.Y.S.2d 298, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarez-v-allstate-insurance-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack