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.
DRYDEN MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael GREASER, Beth Greaser, Defendants-Appellants, et al., Defendant.
Supreme Court properly granted judgment declaring that plaintiff is not obligated to defend and indemnify Michael Greaser and Beth Greaser (defendants) with respect to a personal injury action brought by defendant Jan Polley arising from an accident on August 10, 1992. When Michael Greaser visited Polley at the hospital shortly after the accident, Polley solicited the name of defendants' insurer and asked Greaser to provide a statement in support of Polley's claim. Defendants did not notify plaintiff of the loss until December 13, 1995, after being served by Polley with a summons and complaint.
The policy at issue requires that prompt notice be given “if an insured becomes aware of anything that indicates there might be a claim under the policy”. Polley's statements to Greaser at the hospital were sufficient to put defendants on notice that Polley might make a claim. Defendants contend that they had a good-faith belief in nonliability and thus that their delay in notifying plaintiff is excusable (see, White v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 955, 958, 598 N.Y.S.2d 759, 615 N.E.2d 216). The policy provision, however, is clear and unambiguous and must be given its plain and ordinary meaning (see, Government Empls. Ins. Co. v. Kligler, 42 N.Y.2d 863, 864, 397 N.Y.S.2d 777, 366 N.E.2d 865). At issue under the policy provision is not whether defendants have a good-faith belief in nonliability, but whether they should have anticipated a claim (cf., Vradenburg v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 212 A.D.2d 913, 622 N.Y.S.2d 623).
We reject defendants' contention that plaintiff failed to disclaim coverage “as soon as reasonably possible” (Insurance Law § 3420[d] ). Plaintiff issued its disclaimer letter upon completion of its investigation, 27 days after receiving defendants' untimely notice (see, Artis v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 256 A.D.2d 429, 681 N.Y.S.2d 604; Structure Tone v. Burgess Steel Prods. Corp., 249 A.D.2d 144, 672 N.Y.S.2d 33).
Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
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: February 16, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)