Dryden Mutual Insurance v. Greaser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dryden Mutual Insurance v. Greaser

269 A.D.2d 792, 702 N.Y.S.2d 479, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1681

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 792 (Dryden Mutual Insurance v. Greaser) 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

Dryden Mutual Insurance v. Greaser, 269 A.D.2d 792, 702 N.Y.S.2d 479, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memoran[793]*793dum: Supreme Court properly granted judgment declaring that plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify Michael Greaser and Beth Greaser (defendants) with respect to a personal injury action brought by defendant Jan Polley arising from an accident on August 10, 1992. When Michael Greaser visited Polley at the hospital shortly after the accident, Polley solicited the name of defendants’ insurer and asked Greaser to provide a statement in support of Polley’s claim. Defendants did not notify plaintiff of the loss until December 13, 1995, after being served by Polley with a summons and complaint.

The policy at issue requires that prompt notice be given “if an insured becomes aware of anything that indicates there might be a claim under the policy”. Polley’s statements to Greaser at the hospital were sufficient to put defendants on notice that Polley might make a claim. Defendants contend that they had a good-faith belief in nonliability and thus that their delay in notifying plaintiff is excusable (see, White v City of New York, 81 NY2d 955, 958). The policy provision, however, is clear and unambiguous and must be given its plain and ordinary meaning (see, Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d 863, 864). At issue under the policy provision is not whether defendants have a good-faith belief in nonliability, but whether they should have anticipated a claim (cf., Vradenburg v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 212 AD2d 913).

We reject defendants’ contention that plaintiff failed to disclaim coverage “as soon as is reasonably possible” (Insurance Law § 3420 [d]). Plaintiff issued its disclaimer letter upon completion of its investigation, 27 days after receiving defendants’ untimely notice (see, Artis v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 256 AD2d 429; Structure Tone v Burgess Steel Prods. Corp., 249 AD2d 144). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present— Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memoran[793]*793dum: Supreme Court properly granted judgment declaring that plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify Michael Greaser and Beth Greaser (defendants) with respect to a personal injury action brought by defendant Jan Polley arising from an accident on August 10, 1992. When Michael Greaser visited Polley at the hospital shortly after the accident, Polley solicited the name of defendants’ insurer and asked Greaser to provide a statement in support of Polley’s claim. Defendants did not notify plaintiff of the loss until December 13, 1995, after being served by Polley with a summons and complaint.

The policy at issue requires that prompt notice be given “if an insured becomes aware of anything that indicates there might be a claim under the policy”. Polley’s statements to Greaser at the hospital were sufficient to put defendants on notice that Polley might make a claim. Defendants contend that they had a good-faith belief in nonliability and thus that their delay in notifying plaintiff is excusable (see, White v City of New York, 81 NY2d 955, 958). The policy provision, however, is clear and unambiguous and must be given its plain and ordinary meaning (see, Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Kligler, 42 NY2d 863, 864). At issue under the policy provision is not whether defendants have a good-faith belief in nonliability, but whether they should have anticipated a claim (cf., Vradenburg v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 212 AD2d 913).

We reject defendants’ contention that plaintiff failed to disclaim coverage “as soon as is reasonably possible” (Insurance Law § 3420 [d]). Plaintiff issued its disclaimer letter upon completion of its investigation, 27 days after receiving defendants’ untimely notice (see, Artis v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 256 AD2d 429; Structure Tone v Burgess Steel Prods. Corp., 249 AD2d 144). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Declaratory Judgment.) Present— Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 792, 702 N.Y.S.2d 479, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dryden-mutual-insurance-v-greaser-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack