American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. CMA Enterprises., Ltd.

246 A.D.2d 373, 667 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 272
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 15, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 373 (American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. CMA Enterprises., Ltd.) 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
American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. CMA Enterprises., Ltd., 246 A.D.2d 373, 667 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered December 18, 1996, declaring that defendant-respondent insurer Pacific Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ first notice to Pacific Insurance Company of the underlying claim was given in their summons and complaint in this declaratory judgment action, served nine months after the commencement of the underlying action and two years after plaintiffs first learned of the property damage asserted in the underlying action, a delay that was unreasonable as a matter of law and relieved Pacific of any obligation to defend and indemnify plaintiffs (see, Holmes v Morgan Guar. & Trust Co., 223 AD2d 441; Heydt Contr. Corp. v American Home Assur. Co., 146 AD2d 497, lv dismissed 74 NY2d 651). Pacific’s assertion of untimely notice as a defense in its answer constituted timely notice of disclaimer (see, Thomson v Power Auth., 217 AD2d 495, 497). Since plaintiffs, owners of the covered property and additional insureds under the policy, had an independent obligation to give timely written notice of the claim against them, it is irrelevant whether Pacific acquired actual knowledge of the occurrence from defendant CMA Enterprises, Ltd., which was the primary insured, or from another source, and thus further disclosure would serve no useful purpose and the award of summary judgment was not premature (see, Heydt Contr. Corp. v American Home Assur. Co., supra, at 499). We note the mistaken references in the IAS Court’s decision underlying the judgment to defendant CMA Enterprises, instead of plaintiff additional insureds, Lucille Roberts Health Club and affiliates, and do not anticipate that such will cause any future confusion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Related

Gotham Indus. Servs. Inc. v. Falls Lake Natl. Ins. Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 30557(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Finkelstein v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
219 A.D.3d 401 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Vargas v. City of New York
2018 NY Slip Op 1136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Structure Tone, Inc. v. National Casualty Co.
130 A.D.3d 405 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Argo Corp. v. Admiral Indemnity Co.
128 A.D.3d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Tower Insurance v. Rong Rong Sun
105 A.D.3d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
25 Avenue C New Realty, LLC v. Alea North America Insurance
96 A.D.3d 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau
85 A.D.3d 403 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Key Bank U.S.A. v. Interboro Insurance
65 A.D.3d 521 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Magen v. Hartford Fire Insurance
64 A.D.3d 266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
City of New York v. Welsbach Electric Corp.
49 A.D.3d 322 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
United States Underwriters Ins. v. Kum Gang Inc.
443 F. Supp. 2d 348 (E.D. New York, 2006)
City of New York v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
21 A.D.3d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
U.S. Underwriters Insurance v. City Club Hotel, LLC
369 F.3d 102 (Second Circuit, 2004)
National Casualty Co. v. Paxson Communications Corp.
304 A.D.2d 391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Travelers Insurance v. Volmar Construction Co.
300 A.D.2d 40 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Sayed v. Macari
296 A.D.2d 396 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 A.D.2d 373, 667 N.Y.S.2d 724, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-manufacturers-mutual-insurance-v-cma-enterprises-ltd-nyappdiv-1998.