Midway Paris Beauty Schools v. Travelers Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Midway Paris Beauty Schools v. Travelers Insurance

204 A.D.2d 521, 614 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5296

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

DecidedMay 16, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 521 (Midway Paris Beauty Schools 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

Midway Paris Beauty Schools v. Travelers Insurance, 204 A.D.2d 521, 614 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5296 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), entered August 18, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly dismissed the complaint as untimely because the plaintiff did not commence this action within 24 months of the loss as required by the policy conditions. "Evidence of communications or settlement negotiations between an insured and its insurer either before or after expiration of a limitations period contained in a policy is not, without more, sufficient to prove waiver or estoppel” (Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 968). That the defendant made partial payment on the plaintiff’s claim does not compel reversal, since the record contains evidence that the defendant disputed part of the claim, and "[t]his is not the stuff of waiver or estoppel which could lull anyone into a belief that the 'negotiations’ had passed from contention into settlement” (Kaufman v Republic Ins. Co., 35 NY2d 867, 868).

Finally, the plaintiff’s untimely commencement of this action is not excused by the defendant’s subsequent untimely appearance. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover the proceeds of an insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), entered August 18, 1992, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court correctly dismissed the complaint as untimely because the plaintiff did not commence this action within 24 months of the loss as required by the policy conditions. "Evidence of communications or settlement negotiations between an insured and its insurer either before or after expiration of a limitations period contained in a policy is not, without more, sufficient to prove waiver or estoppel” (Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co., 70 NY2d 966, 968). That the defendant made partial payment on the plaintiff’s claim does not compel reversal, since the record contains evidence that the defendant disputed part of the claim, and "[t]his is not the stuff of waiver or estoppel which could lull anyone into a belief that the 'negotiations’ had passed from contention into settlement” (Kaufman v Republic Ins. Co., 35 NY2d 867, 868).

Finally, the plaintiff’s untimely commencement of this action is not excused by the defendant’s subsequent untimely appearance. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 521, 614 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midway-paris-beauty-schools-v-travelers-insurance-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack