Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, v. CMA ENTERPRISES, LTD., Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, Pacific Insurance Company, Defendant-Respondent, Steven Lagoudis, et al., Defendants.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered December 18, 1996, declaring that defendant-respondent insurer Pacific Insurance Company has no duty to defend or indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiffs' first notice to Pacific Insurance Company of the underlying claim was given in their summons and complaint in this declaratory judgment action, served nine months after the commencement of the underlying action and two years after plaintiffs first learned of the property damage asserted in the underlying action, a delay that was unreasonable as a matter of law and relieved Pacific of any obligation to defend and indemnify plaintiffs (see, Holmes v. Morgan Guar. & Trust Co., 223 A.D.2d 441, 636 N.Y.S.2d 778; Heydt Contr. Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co., 146 A.D.2d 497, 536 N.Y.S.2d 770, lv. dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 651, 542 N.Y.S.2d 520, 540 N.E.2d 715). Pacific's assertion of untimely notice as a defense in its answer constituted timely notice of disclaimer (see, Thomson v. Power Auth., 217 A.D.2d 495, 497, 629 N.Y.S.2d 760). Since plaintiffs, owners of the covered property and additional insureds under the policy, had an independent obligation to give timely written notice of the claim against them, it is irrelevant whether Pacific acquired actual knowledge of the occurrence from defendant CMA Enterprises, Ltd., which was the primary insured, or from another source, and thus further disclosure would serve no useful purpose and the award of summary judgment was not premature (see, Heydt Contr. Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co., supra, at 499, 536 N.Y.S.2d 770). We note the mistaken references in the IAS court's decision underlying the judgment to defendant CMA Enterprises, instead of plaintiffs additional insureds, Lucille Roberts Health Club and affiliates, and do not anticipate that such will cause any future confusion.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 15, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)