Tower Insurance v. R&R Dental Modeling Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tower Insurance v. R&R Dental Modeling Inc.

82 A.D.3d 607, 920 N.Y.2d 42

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 607 (Tower Insurance v. R&R Dental Modeling Inc.) 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

Tower Insurance v. R&R Dental Modeling Inc., 82 A.D.3d 607, 920 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s principal heard the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action stumble on the steps, heard her complain [608]*608of pain, and saw her walking with a limp. A week later, defendant’s principal saw that the injured woman’s leg was in a new cast. Nevertheless, defendant failed to notify plaintiff of the possibility of a claim until 17 months later, after it had been served with, the summons and complaint in the personal injury action. Defendant’s failure, despite the observations of its principal, to make any inquiry into the incident belies its claim to a good faith belief that the injured person would not seek to hold it liable for her injuries and renders its delay in notifying plaintiff inexcusable (see e.g. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Miles, 74 AD3d 410 [2010]; Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 77 AD3d 453 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Moskowitz and Román, JJ.

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

Defendant’s principal heard the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action stumble on the steps, heard her complain [608]*608of pain, and saw her walking with a limp. A week later, defendant’s principal saw that the injured woman’s leg was in a new cast. Nevertheless, defendant failed to notify plaintiff of the possibility of a claim until 17 months later, after it had been served with, the summons and complaint in the personal injury action. Defendant’s failure, despite the observations of its principal, to make any inquiry into the incident belies its claim to a good faith belief that the injured person would not seek to hold it liable for her injuries and renders its delay in notifying plaintiff inexcusable (see e.g. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Miles, 74 AD3d 410 [2010]; Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Red Rose Rest., Inc., 77 AD3d 453 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Moskowitz and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 607, 920 N.Y.2d 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tower-insurance-v-rr-dental-modeling-inc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack