Ciampa Estates, LLC v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., 2011 NY Slip Op 03911 (1st Dept. 2011)
“An insured’s failure to comply with the notice of claim provision vitiates a contract of insurance (see Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 742, 743 [2005])”
“Furthermore, because defendant sent out its disclaimer of coverage within six days of ultimately receiving a notice of claim on behalf of Estates, the disclaimer was timely as a matter of law under Insurance Law § 3420”
Someone please explain this all to me… Coverage? Policy exclusion? Who knows? Who cares? Huh?
One Response
I’m still scratching my head in light of this Court’s ruling that an insurer never has to timely disclaim– or disclaim whatsoever– regarding any purported condition breach, merely because it concerns a No-Fault insurance.
Chubb is just as clear as Insurance Law § 3420 and is even more controlling than statute because it’s an interpretation of an existing statute by the highest court of the State.
Yet now, this Court is telling everyone– directly contrary to Chubb– that the insurer can sit on its purported defense as long as it wants, for no policy gain whatsoever. Still amazes me…