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 CITY OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. INVESTORS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant–Respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered May 26, 2010, dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to strike the decretal paragraph dismissing the complaint and to substitute therefor a declaration that defendant has no duty to defend or indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered April 19, 2010, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissed without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the aforesaid judgment.
As an additional insured under the policy issued by defendant, plaintiff had, in the absence of an express duty, an implied duty, independent of the named insured's obligation, to provide defendant with timely notice of the occurrence for which it seeks coverage (see Structure Tone v. Burgess Steel Prods. Corp., 249 A.D.2d 144 [1998]; Thomson v. Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 217 A.D.2d 495, 497 [1995] ). The notice it served 13 months after receiving the underlying plaintiff's notice of claim was untimely as a matter of law (see 1700 Broadway Co. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 54 AD3d 593, 593 [2008] ).
Nor may plaintiff rely upon the named insured's timely notice of the underlying action to satisfy its duty to provide timely notice of the occurrence, since the duty under the policy to notify of an occurrence is distinct from the duty to notify of any claim or suit brought thereon (see American Tr. Ins. Co. v. Sartor, 3 NY3d 71, 75 [2004]; Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Sentinel Real Estate Corp., 283 A.D.2d 44, 54 [2001] ). Moreover, plaintiff's obligation to provide timely notice was independent of the named insured's obligation because its interests were adverse to those of the named insured “from the moment the [amended] complaint was served naming them both as defendants” (1700 Broadway Co., 54 AD3d at 594; City of New York v. Welsbach Elec. Corp., 49 AD3d 322, 322 [2008] ).
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: November 10, 2011
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)