Hyer v. Travelers Insurance

297 A.D.2d 707, 747 N.Y.2d 393, 747 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8674
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 23, 2002
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 707 (Hyer v. Travelers 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
Hyer v. Travelers Insurance, 297 A.D.2d 707, 747 N.Y.2d 393, 747 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

[708]*708The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the defendant met its “heavy burden” of proving “willful and avowed obstruction” on the part of its insured and thus was entitled to disclaim coverage based upon lack of cooperation (Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159, 168; see State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Imeri, 182 AD2d 683; cf. Physicians’ Reciprocal Insurers v Keller, 243 AD2d 547). In opposition thereto, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact sufficient to warrant denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Imeri, supra; cf. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v Burr, 226 AD2d 416). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Continental Casualty Co. v. Stradford
46 A.D.3d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
American Transit Insurance v. Fuentes
1 Misc. 3d 787 (New York Supreme Court, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
297 A.D.2d 707, 747 N.Y.2d 393, 747 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyer-v-travelers-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.