MALCA AMIT NEW YORK INC v. International Insurance Broker, Inc., et al., Defendants. (1999)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered April 15, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, upon the parties' respective motions for summary judgment, declared that defendant-appellant (“defendant”) is obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff in actions brought against plaintiff arising out of the theft of a gem shipment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

 Plaintiff's contract with its armored car service required the latter to maintain all risks insurance coverage with Lloyds of London for the benefit of customers, like plaintiff, who entrusted property to its care.   Defendant, through its London agent, issued a cover letter confirming all risks insurance, including infidelity, for the armored car service and “for whom they have instructions to insure”.   Monthly premiums for this coverage were paid by plaintiff to defendant through the armored car service and its insurance agent.   Upon such facts, the motion court correctly declared that defendant is obligated to defend and indemnify plaintiff in actions brought against plaintiff arising out of the theft, by one of the armored car company's couriers, of property that plaintiff had entrusted to the armored car company's care.   The motion court also correctly held that defendant's unexplained nine-month delay in giving written notice of disclaimer on the ground of late notice of claim precludes it from raising that defense (Hartford Ins. Co. v. County of Nassau, 46 N.Y.2d 1028, 416 N.Y.S.2d 539, 389 N.E.2d 1061).   We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.