Security Insurance Group v. Priestley

61 A.D.2d 795, 401 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10216
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 6, 1978·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In an action to declare, inter alia, that the plaintiff insurer is not obligated to defend or indemnify defendant Priestley in a wrongful death action brought by the estate of his wife, the said defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated October 20, 1976, which, upon renewal of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted the motion and declared that plaintiff was not required to defend and indemnify him in the wrongful death action. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and action remitted to Special Term for a hearing in accordance herewith. We agree that the plaintiff-respondent would not be required to defend and indemnify defendant-appellant Priestley if a timely notice of disclaimer had been given (cf. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Westlake, 35 NY2d 587). However, we do not believe that the record was sufficient to permit Special Term to properly determine whether, as required by statute, the plaintiff gave written notice of disclaimer of coverage as soon as was reasonably possible (see Insurance Law, § 167, subd 8). Therefore, a hearing is required to determine that question. Mollen, P. J., Damiani, Titone and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

Security Insurance Group v. Priestley, 61 A.D.2d 795, 401 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

61 A.D.2d 795 (Security Insurance Group v. Priestley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Zappone v. Home Insurance
432 N.E.2d 783 (New York Court of Appeals, 1982)
Zappone v. Home Insurance
80 A.D.2d 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)