D'Aloia v. Travelers Insurance

New York Court of Appeals

D'Aloia v. Travelers Insurance

647 N.E.2d 1345, 85 N.Y.2d 825, 623 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 124

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 647 N.E.2d 1345 (D'Aloia v. Travelers 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

D'Aloia v. Travelers Insurance, 647 N.E.2d 1345, 85 N.Y.2d 825, 623 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 124 (N.Y. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. When the facts of an occurrence are such that an insured acting in good faith would not reasonably believe that liability will result, notice of the occurrence is given "as soon as possible” if given promptly after the insured receives notice that a claim will in fact be made (see, Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Hoffman, 56 NY2d 799). The record before us, which indicates that the injured party’s parents declined the insureds’ offer to pay medical expenses and indicated no intention to sue, supports the affirmed finding below that notice given by the insureds promptly after suit was instituted against them was given "as soon as possible,” notwithstanding that the action was not begun until nearly three years after the occurrence.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. When the facts of an occurrence are such that an insured acting in good faith would not reasonably believe that liability will result, notice of the occurrence is given "as soon as possible” if given promptly after the insured receives notice that a claim will in fact be made (see, Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Hoffman, 56 NY2d 799). The record before us, which indicates that the injured party’s parents declined the insureds’ offer to pay medical expenses and indicated no intention to sue, supports the affirmed finding below that notice given by the insureds promptly after suit was instituted against them was given "as soon as possible,” notwithstanding that the action was not begun until nearly three years after the occurrence.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

647 N.E.2d 1345, 85 N.Y.2d 825, 623 N.Y.S.2d 837, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daloia-v-travelers-insurance-ny-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack