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.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Altagracia Simo, Defendant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered January 10, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the cross motions of defendants NAB Construction Corp./Grow Tunneling Corp., J. V.(NAB) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (National Union) for summary judgment declaring that they were not obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff New York City Transit Authority in the underlying personal injury action of co-defendant Altagracia Simo, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Inasmuch as the subject insurance policy required plaintiff insured to tender a notice of a claim thereunder to defendant insurer “as soon as practicable” and plaintiff has failed to offer a reasonable excuse for waiting to advise the insurer of the personal injury claim here at issue by Ms. Simo until some 27 months after it received notice of such claim, plaintiff's notice of claim was untimely as a matter of law (see, Deso v. London & Lancashire Indem. Co. of Am., 3 N.Y.2d 127, 129-130, 164 N.Y.S.2d 689, 143 N.E.2d 889). Although plaintiff maintains that its delay was reasonable since it reasonably believed that there was no prospect that it would be held responsible for Ms. Simo's claim, the record discloses that a timely investigation of the circumstances underlying the claim, such as plaintiff insured was bound to undertake, would have apprised plaintiff that any belief it may have had in its nonliability was not well founded (see, Sec. Mut. Ins. Co. of New York v. Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436, 441, 340 N.Y.S.2d 902, 293 N.E.2d 76). Accordingly, plaintiff's failure to satisfy the condition precedent of timely notice vitiated the policy (see, Deso, supra ), and relieved NAB and National Union of any further obligations attendant thereto.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 05, 2002
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)