Saitta v. New York City Transit Authority

55 A.D.3d 422, 866 N.Y.S.2d 62
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 23, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 55 A.D.3d 422 (Saitta v. New York City Transit Authority) 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
Saitta v. New York City Transit Authority, 55 A.D.3d 422, 866 N.Y.S.2d 62 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered January 9, 2008, which, in a third-party action seeking a declaration that third-party defendant insurer (Allianz) is obligated to defend and indemnify third-party plaintiffs additional insureds (collectively the Transit Authority) in the main action for personal injuries brought by an employee of Allianz’s named insured, granted the Transit Authority’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

[423]*423It should have been apparent to Allianz that all of the information it needed to issue a denial of coverage was contained in the enclosures forwarded by the Transit Authority along with its notice of the accident, including that the Transit Authority’s claim arose out of the work of Allianz’s named insured, that the injured person was an employee of the named insured, and that the Transit Authority’s notice of the accident was untimely. Accordingly, Allianz’s nearly four-month delay in disclaiming coverage, measured from its receipt of the Transit Authority’s notice of the accident, was unreasonable as a matter of law, absent a reasonable explanation for the delay (see First Fin. Ins. Co. v Jetco Contr. Corp., 1 NY3d 64, 68-69, 70 [2003]). It does not avail Allianz to argue that it was not required to limit its investigation to the Transit Authority’s delay, where its claims examiner could not say, at her deposition, what other grounds for denying coverage were investigated. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Andrias, Saxe, Sweeny and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Related

Continental Casualty Co. v. Marshall Granger & Co.
6 F. Supp. 3d 380 (S.D. New York, 2014)
National Grange Mutual Insurance v. Judson Construction, Inc.
931 F. Supp. 2d 373 (D. Connecticut, 2013)
Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC v. Arch Insurance
75 A.D.3d 404 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Scott McLaughlin Truck & Equipment Sales, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Co. of America
68 A.D.3d 1619 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 A.D.3d 422, 866 N.Y.S.2d 62, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saitta-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2008.