Hazen v. Otsego Mutual Fire Insurance

286 A.D.2d 708, 730 N.Y.S.2d 156, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8563
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 17, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 708 (Hazen v. Otsego Mutual Fire Insurance) 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
Hazen v. Otsego Mutual Fire Insurance, 286 A.D.2d 708, 730 N.Y.S.2d 156, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action pursu[709]*709ant to Insurance Law § 3420 to recover an unsatisfied judgment against the defendant’s insureds, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Minardo, J.), dated July 6, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (3) provides that a notice of claim to an insurer may be made by the insured, the injured person, or any other claimant. Insurance Law § 3420 (d) provides that an insurer may disclaim coverage by giving a written notice of the disclaimer as soon as reasonably possible. However, when an insurer disclaims coverage, "the notice of disclaimer must promptly apprise the claimant with a high degree of specificity of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated” (General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862, 864). The defendant’s disclaimer of coverage was based only on its insured’s failure to notify it of the claim. The disclaimer, therefore, was not effective against the plaintiffs, the injured parties, who gave notice of the claim, and the defendant is now estopped from raising the plaintiffs’ allegedly late notice in the instant action as a ground for disclaiming coverage (see, Legion Ins. Co. v Weiss, 282 AD2d 576; Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Gath, 265 AD2d 805; Eagle Ins. Co. v Ortega, 251 AD2d 282). Ritter, J. P., Altman, McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Related

AutoOne Insurance v. Sarvis
111 A.D.3d 824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Henner v. Everdry Marketing & Management, Inc.
74 A.D.3d 1776 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Zeldin v. Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance
44 A.D.3d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Vacca v. State Farm Insurance
15 A.D.3d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Government Employees Insurance v. Jones
6 A.D.3d 534 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Ambrosio v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District
5 A.D.3d 410 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Cooper
303 A.D.2d 414 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
286 A.D.2d 708, 730 N.Y.S.2d 156, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazen-v-otsego-mutual-fire-insurance-nyappdiv-2001.