From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Industry City Management v. Atlantic Mut

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 7, 2009
64 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 74.

July 7, 2009.

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered October 25, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment declaring that defendant is obligated to indemnify Plaintiff's Industry City Management, 1-10, Industry Associates, LLC, 1-10, and Industry Associates Corp. (collectively Industry) in the amount of $250,000 for their portion of the settlement paid in the underlying personal injury action, and granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment declaring that it was not obligated to defend and indemnify Plaintiff's in the underlying action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendant's cross motion denied and Plaintiffs' motion granted, and it is declared that defendant is obligated to indemnify Industry in the amount of $250,000.

Weg and Myers, P.C., New York (Joshua L. Mallin of counsel), for appellants.

Litchfield Cavo LLP, New York (Mark A. Everett of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.


Industry correctly argues that a March 2005 letter to defendant, written on Industry's behalf by its own insurer's claims administrator, seeking coverage for Industry as an additional insured, constituted timely notice to the insurer within the meaning of Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (3), and as such required a timely disclaimer from defendant ( see JT Magen v Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 64 A.D.3d 266; Bovis Lend Lease LMB Inc. v Garito Contr., Inc., 38 AD3d 260, 261; Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 27 AD3d 84, 89-90). Because defendant's disclaimer of coverage, which was based on Industry's allegedly untimely notice, was not issued until seven months later, it was untimely and therefore ineffective ( see Insurance Law § 3420 [d]; West 16th St. Tenants Corp. v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 290 AD2d 278, lv denied 98 NY2d 605; Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v United States Fid. Guar. Co., 263 AD2d 380, 381; Thomson v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 217 AD2d 495, 497). Concur.


Summaries of

Industry City Management v. Atlantic Mut

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 7, 2009
64 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Industry City Management v. Atlantic Mut

Case Details

Full title:INDUSTRY CITY MANAGEMENT et al., Appellants, v. ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jul 7, 2009

Citations

64 A.D.3d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 5681
882 N.Y.S.2d 121

Citing Cases

Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Century Sur. Co.

See Admiral Ins. Co. v. State Farm Fire, 86 A.D.3d 486, 489 (1st Dep't 2011) ("[The insured] is [] a named…

Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.

Despite Tower's protestations, PSM's November 24, 2008 tender letter, addressed to Three Star and copied to…