DOES UNTIMELY NOTICE BAR RECOVERY?

270_C323

DOES UNTIMELY NOTICE BAR RECOVERY?

Commercial General Liability

Timely Notice Condition

Requirement To Defend And Indemnify

 

 

Hermitage Insurance Company (Hermitage) insured premises owned by 120 Whitehall Realty Associates LLC (Whitehall). Whitehall hired a construction company to perform work at the premises. Juan Godoy, an employee of the construction company, was injured while working at the premises. Although Whitehall management knew of the accident the day it occurred, it did not notify Hermitage for over two-and-a-half months.

 

Hermitage denied coverage. It claimed, among other things, that notice was not timely as the policy required. Whitehall filed a lawsuit against its insurance agency, the Grober-Imbey Agency, Inc. (Grober-Imbey), as well as Hermitage. It claimed that Hermitage was required to defend and indemnify it and that the Grober-Imbey did not secure an adequate insurance policy. The lower court found in favor of Hermitage and Grober-Imbey. Whitehall appealed.

 

On appeal the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York, found that Whitehall did not provide a valid excuse for its delay in notifying Hermitage of the accident. The court also found that Whitehall's complaint against Grober-Imbey was not valid, even if it was negligent, because Grober-Imbey's alleged negligence was not the cause of Whitehall's alleged injuries.

 

According to the court, "Where an insurance policy requires that notice of an occurrence be given promptly, notice must be given within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts and circumstances." Under the circumstances of this case, Whitehall's delay of more than two-and-a-half-months was not reasonable. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court and remitted the matter to it to enter a judgment declaring that Hermitage was not obligated to defend and indemnify Whitehall in the underlying action.

 

120 Whitehall Realty Associates, LLC vs. Hermitage Insurance Company-Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York-May 8 2007-835 New York Supplement 2d 715