State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Cooper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Cooper

303 A.D.2d 414, 756 N.Y.S.2d 87, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2167

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 414 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Cooper) 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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Cooper, 303 A.D.2d 414, 756 N.Y.S.2d 87, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, Zurich Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Trainor, R.), dated February 14, 2002, which, upon determining that its disclaimer of coverage was invalid, granted the petition and permanently stayed the arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant, Zurich Insurance Company (hereinafter Zurich), disclaimed coverage of the injured party, Lou Cooper, on the ground, inter alia, that Cooper failed to give it timely notice of his underlying negligence action. It is well settled that to disclaim coverage for bodily injuries, an insurer must give written notice as soon as reasonably possible of such disclaimer to the injured party or any other claimant, as well as the insured, and such notice must properly apprise the injured party or claimant, with a high degree of specificity, of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated (see Insurance Law § 3420 [d]; General Ace. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862 [1979]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Joseph, 287 AD2d 724 [2001]). Further, in order for a disclaimer letter to be valid against an injured party, the notice of disclaimer must specifically advise the claimant that his or her notice of claim was untimely (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Joseph, supra; Hazen v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 708 [2001]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that Zurich’s disclaimer was invalid as to Cooper, because the letter sent to the insured, the defendant Nazir Butt, disclaimed coverage based upon Butt’s failure to timely notify Zurich of the lawsuit, not Cooper’s failure to give timely notice (see General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci, supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v McGovern, 283 AD2d 582 [2001]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly determined that Zurich’s disclaimer of coverage was invalid, granted the petition, and permanently stayed the arbitration. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Mastro, 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, Zurich Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Trainor, R.), dated February 14, 2002, which, upon determining that its disclaimer of coverage was invalid, granted the petition and permanently stayed the arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant, Zurich Insurance Company (hereinafter Zurich), disclaimed coverage of the injured party, Lou Cooper, on the ground, inter alia, that Cooper failed to give it timely notice of his underlying negligence action. It is well settled that to disclaim coverage for bodily injuries, an insurer must give written notice as soon as reasonably possible of such disclaimer to the injured party or any other claimant, as well as the insured, and such notice must properly apprise the injured party or claimant, with a high degree of specificity, of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated (see Insurance Law § 3420 [d]; General Ace. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862 [1979]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Joseph, 287 AD2d 724 [2001]). Further, in order for a disclaimer letter to be valid against an injured party, the notice of disclaimer must specifically advise the claimant that his or her notice of claim was untimely (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Joseph, supra; Hazen v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 708 [2001]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that Zurich’s disclaimer was invalid as to Cooper, because the letter sent to the insured, the defendant Nazir Butt, disclaimed coverage based upon Butt’s failure to timely notify Zurich of the lawsuit, not Cooper’s failure to give timely notice (see General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci, supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v McGovern, 283 AD2d 582 [2001]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly determined that Zurich’s disclaimer of coverage was invalid, granted the petition, and permanently stayed the arbitration. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 414, 756 N.Y.S.2d 87, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-cooper-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack