Rochwarger v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rochwarger v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

192 A.D.2d 305, 595 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3241

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

DecidedApril 1, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 305 (Rochwarger v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh) 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

Rochwarger v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, 192 A.D.2d 305, 595 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered February 28, 1992, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The distinction between "claims made” and "occurrence” policies controls the issue of coverage in this case, not whether defendant-insurer suffered any prejudice as a result of the short delay in giving notice of the claim (Chas. T. Main, Inc. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 406 Mass 862, 865, 551 NE2d 28, 30). An insured under a "claims made” policy knows in advance that there is an applicable date that cuts off claims, this being a distinct characteristic of such a policy that directly relates to rate setting (406 Mass, supra, at 864, 551 NE2d, supra, at 29). Nor should defendant be estopped from denying coverage since there was no "termination of coverage” under part 73 of the New York State Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) triggering the notice requirement, and plaintiffs’ former company renewed the policy. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered February 28, 1992, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The distinction between "claims made” and "occurrence” policies controls the issue of coverage in this case, not whether defendant-insurer suffered any prejudice as a result of the short delay in giving notice of the claim (Chas. T. Main, Inc. v Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 406 Mass 862, 865, 551 NE2d 28, 30). An insured under a "claims made” policy knows in advance that there is an applicable date that cuts off claims, this being a distinct characteristic of such a policy that directly relates to rate setting (406 Mass, supra, at 864, 551 NE2d, supra, at 29). Nor should defendant be estopped from denying coverage since there was no "termination of coverage” under part 73 of the New York State Insurance Department Regulations (11 NYCRR) triggering the notice requirement, and plaintiffs’ former company renewed the policy. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 305, 595 N.Y.S.2d 459, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rochwarger-v-national-union-fire-insurance-co-of-pittsburgh-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack