Nationwide Insurance v. Freehill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nationwide Insurance v. Freehill

224 A.D.2d 532, 637 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1159

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 532 (Nationwide Insurance v. Freehill) 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

Nationwide Insurance v. Freehill, 224 A.D.2d 532, 637 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, the petitioner Nationwide Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered August 26, 1994, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Marlene Freehill.

The insured claims to have sustained injuries when the vehicle in which she was a passenger was struck in the rear by a second vehicle, propelling her vehicle into the rear of a third vehicle. The insured brought an action against the owner of the second vehicle, which was settled for the full limit of its bodily injury liability coverage, but did not take legal action against the owner of the third vehicle. Approximately eight months after the accident, the insured filed a claim under the Supplemental Uninsured Motorist indorsement of her policy with the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the duty of an insurance carrier to disclaim coverage promptly extends to those situations where the disclaimer is based upon the insured’s failure to provide a timely notice of claim (see, Ward v Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea, 207 AD2d 342, 343; Kramer v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 176 AD2d 308; New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Markowitz, 147 AD2d 461). The carrier’s unexplained delay of more than two years in denying coverage was unreasonable as a matter of law (see, Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028, 1030; Ward v Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea, supra; Farmers Fire Ins. Co. v Brighton, 142 AD2d 547, 548).

Moreover, the insured’s failure to exhaust the limits of the third vehicle’s bodily injury liability coverage does not defeat her claim for underinsurance based on the underinsured status of the second vehicle (see, S’Dao v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 853; Passaro v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 128 Misc 2d 21, affd 124 AD2d 647). Rosenblatt, J. P., Hart, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, the petitioner Nationwide Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), entered August 26, 1994, which dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Marlene Freehill.

The insured claims to have sustained injuries when the vehicle in which she was a passenger was struck in the rear by a second vehicle, propelling her vehicle into the rear of a third vehicle. The insured brought an action against the owner of the second vehicle, which was settled for the full limit of its bodily injury liability coverage, but did not take legal action against the owner of the third vehicle. Approximately eight months after the accident, the insured filed a claim under the Supplemental Uninsured Motorist indorsement of her policy with the appellant.

Contrary to the appellant’s contentions, the duty of an insurance carrier to disclaim coverage promptly extends to those situations where the disclaimer is based upon the insured’s failure to provide a timely notice of claim (see, Ward v Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea, 207 AD2d 342, 343; Kramer v Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co., 176 AD2d 308; New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Markowitz, 147 AD2d 461). The carrier’s unexplained delay of more than two years in denying coverage was unreasonable as a matter of law (see, Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028, 1030; Ward v Corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea, supra; Farmers Fire Ins. Co. v Brighton, 142 AD2d 547, 548).

Moreover, the insured’s failure to exhaust the limits of the third vehicle’s bodily injury liability coverage does not defeat her claim for underinsurance based on the underinsured status of the second vehicle (see, S’Dao v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 853; Passaro v Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 128 Misc 2d 21, affd 124 AD2d 647). Rosenblatt, J. P., Hart, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 532, 637 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nationwide-insurance-v-freehill-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack