Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. Investors Underwriting Managers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. Investors Underwriting Managers, Inc.

303 A.D.2d 278, 757 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2771

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 20, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered October 17, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of defendants Investors Underwriting Managers, Inc. and Carlisle Insurance Co. for summary judgment, declaring that they were not obligated to defend or indemnify plaintiffs, and otherwise dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of plaintiffs failure to directly notify defendant Investors of the occurrence, as required by the insurance policy; the fact that Investors was aware that the defense of the action was being provided by the State Insurance Fund, to which the plaintiffs’ notice of claim had been sent; and the fact that plaintiff was aware that Investors had already and timely declined the claim by its named insured, the IAS court properly held that the failure to disclaim coverage formally for two months was not unreasonable as a matter of law, and did not violate Insurance Law § 3420 (d). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered October 17, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of defendants Investors Underwriting Managers, Inc. and Carlisle Insurance Co. for summary judgment, declaring that they were not obligated to defend or indemnify plaintiffs, and otherwise dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of plaintiffs failure to directly notify defendant Investors of the occurrence, as required by the insurance policy; the fact that Investors was aware that the defense of the action was being provided by the State Insurance Fund, to which the plaintiffs’ notice of claim had been sent; and the fact that plaintiff was aware that Investors had already and timely declined the claim by its named insured, the IAS court properly held that the failure to disclaim coverage formally for two months was not unreasonable as a matter of law, and did not violate Insurance Law § 3420 (d). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. Investors Underwriting Managers, Inc., 303 A.D.2d 278, 757 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

303 A.D.2d 278 (Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. Investors Underwriting Managers, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related