State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Cooper
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- AutoOne Insurance v. Sarvis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- AutoOne Insurance v. Sarvis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Loeffler v. Sirius America Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Evangelos Car Wash, Inc. v. Utica First Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Vacca v. State Farm Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Shell v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Government Employees Insurance v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Hereford Insurance v. Mohammod (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, Zurich Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Trainor, R.), dated February 14, 2002, which, upon determining that its disclaimer of coverage was invalid, granted the petition and permanently stayed the arbitration.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellant, Zurich Insurance Company (hereinafter Zurich), disclaimed coverage of the injured party, Lou Cooper, on the ground, inter alia, that Cooper failed to give it timely notice of his underlying negligence action. It is well settled that to disclaim coverage for bodily injuries, an insurer must give written notice as soon as reasonably possible of such disclaimer to the injured party or any other claimant, as well as the insured, and such notice must properly apprise the injured party or claimant, with a high degree of specificity, of the ground or grounds on which the disclaimer is predicated (see Insurance Law § 3420 [d]; General Ace. Ins. Group v Cirucci, 46 NY2d 862 [1979]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Joseph, 287 AD2d 724 [2001]). Further, in order for a disclaimer letter to be valid against an injured party, the notice of disclaimer must specifically advise the claimant that his or her notice of claim was untimely (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Joseph, supra; Hazen v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 286 AD2d 708 [2001]). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that Zurich’s disclaimer was invalid as to Cooper, because the letter sent to the insured, the defendant Nazir Butt, disclaimed coverage based upon Butt’s failure to timely notify Zurich of the lawsuit, not Cooper’s failure to give timely notice (see General Acc. Ins. Group v Cirucci, supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v McGovern, 283 AD2d 582 [2001]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly determined that Zurich’s disclaimer of coverage was invalid, granted the petition, and permanently stayed the arbitration. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.