Security Insurance Group v. Priestley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Security Insurance Group v. Priestley

61 A.D.2d 795, 401 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10216

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 61 A.D.2d 795 (Security Insurance Group v. Priestley) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 795, 401 N.Y.S.2d 860, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/security-insurance-group-v-priestley-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack