Mathis v. Zurich American Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mathis v. Zurich American Insurance

127 A.D.3d 622, 5 N.Y.S.3d 872

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

DecidedApril 28, 2015

Docket14939

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 622 (Mathis v. Zurich American 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

Mathis v. Zurich American Insurance, 127 A.D.3d 622, 5 N.Y.S.3d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered March 11, 2014, awarding plaintiff a sum of money, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment denied, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff failed to comply with the insurance policy’s notice of lawsuit requirement, a condition precedent to coverage (see Argo Corp. v Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 332 [2005]).

The restrictions of Insurance Law § 3420 (d) do not apply to this policy, which was not issued or delivered in the State of New York (see generally FC Bruckner Assoc., L.P. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 95 AD3d 556 [1st Dept 2012]). In any event, the insurer’s disclaimer was timely.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Renwick and Gische, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered March 11, 2014, awarding plaintiff a sum of money, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment denied, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff failed to comply with the insurance policy’s notice of lawsuit requirement, a condition precedent to coverage (see Argo Corp. v Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 332 [2005]).

The restrictions of Insurance Law § 3420 (d) do not apply to this policy, which was not issued or delivered in the State of New York (see generally FC Bruckner Assoc., L.P. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 95 AD3d 556 [1st Dept 2012]). In any event, the insurer’s disclaimer was timely.

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Renwick and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 622, 5 N.Y.S.3d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathis-v-zurich-american-insurance-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack