Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. Superintendent of Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. Superintendent of Insurance

287 A.D.2d 268, 730 N.Y.S.2d 713, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9299

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 4, 2001·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered July 12, 2000, which confirmed a referee’s report, dated November 24, 1999, recommending denial of the claim of Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company (GNY) seeking contribution from the Superintendent of Insurance, as Liquidator of respondent Galaxy Insurance Company, for GNY’s defense and indemnification of defendant insureds in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[269] The Referee’s finding that claimant GNY failed to comply with the notice provision of the applicable policy issued by Galaxy Insurance Company is supported by the record and, accordingly, was properly confirmed (see, Nager v Panadis, 238 AD2d 135). As the Referee found, the materials purportedly sent by GNY to the Superintendent of Insurance, as Galaxy’s liquidator, did not adequately apprise the Liquidator of the claim made against Galaxy’s insureds, and, in any event, the materials were not sent “as soon as practicable,” as required by Galaxy’s policy (see, Steadfast Ins. Co. v Sentinel Real Estate Corp., 283 AD2d 44, 53). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered July 12, 2000, which confirmed a referee’s report, dated November 24, 1999, recommending denial of the claim of Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company (GNY) seeking contribution from the Superintendent of Insurance, as Liquidator of respondent Galaxy Insurance Company, for GNY’s defense and indemnification of defendant insureds in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[269] The Referee’s finding that claimant GNY failed to comply with the notice provision of the applicable policy issued by Galaxy Insurance Company is supported by the record and, accordingly, was properly confirmed (see, Nager v Panadis, 238 AD2d 135). As the Referee found, the materials purportedly sent by GNY to the Superintendent of Insurance, as Galaxy’s liquidator, did not adequately apprise the Liquidator of the claim made against Galaxy’s insureds, and, in any event, the materials were not sent “as soon as practicable,” as required by Galaxy’s policy (see, Steadfast Ins. Co. v Sentinel Real Estate Corp., 283 AD2d 44, 53). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. Superintendent of Insurance, 287 A.D.2d 268, 730 N.Y.S.2d 713, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

287 A.D.2d 268 (Greater New York Mutual Insurance v. Superintendent of Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related