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.
THE DOE FUND, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, Adam Greenberg, et al., Defendants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 6, 2006, which denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted defendant Royal Indemnity's cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiffs sought to test the validity of Royal Indemnity's disclaimer of coverage based on late notice of claim. The alleged “occurrence” took place in 2003 when a trainee of plaintiff Doe Fund, operating an electric power utility vehicle, struck defendant Greenberg, the plaintiff in the underlying personal injury action. Greenberg was taken to a hospital by ambulance. Even though Doe Fund's chief financial officer was aware of these facts, and the complaint report by defendant Hudson River Parks Trust indicated serious injuries, the insurer was not notified until some eight months after the incident, and three months after plaintiffs herein were served with a summons and complaint.
It is well settled that when an insurance policy requires notice of an occurrence or action be given promptly, that means within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances. Courts have found even relatively short periods of unexcused delay in giving notice to be unreasonable as a matter of law (see Deso v. London & Lancashire Indem. Co. of Am., 3 N.Y.2d 127, 164 N.Y.S.2d 689, 143 N.E.2d 889 [1957] [51 days]; US Pack Network Corp. v. Travelers Prop. Cas., 23 A.D.3d 299, 808 N.Y.S.2d 153 [2005] [6 months]; Heydt Contr. Corp. v. American Home Assur. Co., 146 A.D.2d 497, 536 N.Y.S.2d 770 [1989], lv. dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 651, 542 N.Y.S.2d 520, 540 N.E.2d 715 [1989] [131 days] ).
The requirement of timely notice to the insurer is a condition precedent to coverage (Paramount Ins. Co. v. Rosedale Gardens, 293 A.D.2d 235, 239, 743 N.Y.S.2d 59 [2002] ). Without a valid excuse, failure to satisfy this requirement vitiates the policy (Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436, 440, 340 N.Y.S.2d 902, 293 N.E.2d 76 [1972] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
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: November 30, 2006
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)