Anthony Marino Construction Corp. v. INA Underwriters Insurance

505 N.E.2d 944, 69 N.Y.2d 798, 513 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15396
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 12, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 505 N.E.2d 944 (Anthony Marino Construction Corp. v. INA Underwriters Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anthony Marino Construction Corp. v. INA Underwriters Insurance, 505 N.E.2d 944, 69 N.Y.2d 798, 513 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15396 (N.Y. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Question certified not answered as unnecessary.

Plaintiff’s failure to file sworn proofs of loss within 60 days after receiving a demand to do so by its insurer, accompanied by proof of loss forms, is a complete defense to plaintiff’s action on the insurance policy (Igbara Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 63 NY2d 201, 216; Insurance Law § 3407 [a]). Plaintiff’s contentions that defendants should be estopped from relying on the proof of loss condition because their demand letter did not state the date by which the proofs had to be filed and because it also contained a demand that plaintiff appear for an examination under oath are without merit (Igbara Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., supra; see also, Melendez v United States Fire Ins. Co., NYLJ, Jan. 2, 1987, p 15, col 2). Nor does the fact that defendants, through their attorney, examined one of plaintiff’s employees under oath with regard to its claims constitute a waiver of the proof of loss condition (Maleh v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 64 NY2d 613, 614). Furthermore, the utilization of the untimely filed proofs of loss at the examination does not constitute a waiver of the condition because defendants’ attorney at that time clearly reserved his right to assert at any time that the proofs were untimely filed. We have examined the rest of plaintiff’s arguments and found them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified not answered as unnecessary. Motion by Anthony Marino Construction Corp. for leave to appear amicus curiae denied.

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

Related

Akter v. Interboro Ins. Co.
2024 NY Slip Op 51483(U) (New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, 2024)
Picinich v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
216 A.D.3d 1232 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Dinerman
2018 NY Slip Op 3101 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Weisman v. Mony Life Insurance Co.
2017 NY Slip Op 1321 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Hunter v. Seneca Insurance
114 A.D.3d 556 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Going 2 Extremes, Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.
100 A.D.3d 694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
ALEXANDER, HAROLD v. NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Alexander v. New York Central Mutual
96 A.D.3d 1457 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Meserole Factory, LLC v. Arch Insurance Group
88 A.D.3d 967 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Darvick v. General Accident Insurance
303 A.D.2d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Ingarra v. General Accident/PG Insurance
273 A.D.2d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Bailey v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance
273 A.D.2d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Harris v. Allstate Insurance
83 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D. New York, 2000)
DeRenzis v. Allstate Insurance
256 A.D.2d 303 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
80 East 116th Street Corp. v. Galaxy Insurance
249 A.D.2d 168 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Hannah Furniture, Inc. v. Transtate Insurance
238 A.D.2d 546 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Rodriguez v. Allstate Insurance
236 A.D.2d 285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Bydeskuthy v. Hanover Insurance
229 A.D.2d 371 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
505 N.E.2d 944, 69 N.Y.2d 798, 513 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 15396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-marino-construction-corp-v-ina-underwriters-insurance-ny-1987.