Cortes v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

14 Misc. 2d 1062, 180 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2401
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided November 6, 1958·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Notice of the accident to the insurance broker was not notice to the insurance carrier, defendant here. (See [1063] Allen v. German American Ins. Co., 123 N. Y. 6.) The insurance policy defendant issued to Alvarez, its insured, required written notice of an accident to he given to the company as soon as practicable. Since the record fails to disclose a reasonable explanation or an adequate excuse, a delay of 58 days before written notice was given defendant is untimely and unreasonable as a matter of law, and not a fulfillment of the condition of the policy. (See Vanderbilt v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 265 App. Div. 495.)

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint on the merits, with costs.

Concur — Hoestadter, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Cortes v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 14 Misc. 2d 1062, 180 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

14 Misc. 2d 1062 (Cortes v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Warren v. Merchants Mutual Insurance
27 A.D.2d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1966)
Curreri v. Allstate Insurance
37 Misc. 2d 557 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)