The Disclaimer Statute in the Context of Notice of Claim Given by Another Insurer
In some cases, notice of the claim is given to the insurer by another insurance company, rather than by the insured or the injured party. The question of whether the same considerations and obligations apply in that situation has occupied numerous courts in several different contexts. Jonathan A. Dachs explores the issues and case law in this edition of his Insurance Law column.
July 23, 2021 at 04:50 PM
17 minute read
Much has been written—in this space and elsewhere—about the rules and practical considerations governing disclaimers/denials of insurance coverage pursuant to the disclaimer statute, Insurance Law §3420(d)(2) (formerly known as §3420(d)). The situation most often discussed is the common one in which notice of the accident and/or claim is given to the insurer by the insured or the injured party, and the disclaimer is, in accordance with the terms of the statute, issued by the insurer "to the insured and the injured person or any other claimant." (Ins. L. §3420(d)(2) provides as follows: "If under a liability policy issued or delivered in this state, an insurer shall disclaim liability or deny coverage for death or bodily injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident or any other type of accident occurring within this state, it shall give written notice as soon as is reasonably possible of such disclaimer of liability or denial of coverage to the insured and the injured person or any other claimant.") In some cases, however, notice of the claim is given to the insurer by another insurance company, rather than by the insured or the injured party. The question of whether the same considerations and obligations apply in that situation has occupied numerous courts in several different contexts.
The Statute
It is well-settled that "the Legislature enacted §3420(d)(2) 'to aid injured parties' by encouraging the expeditious resolution of liability claims [citations omitted]." KeySpan Gas East v. Munich Reins. Am., 23 N.Y.3d 583 (2014). As earlier enunciated by the First Department in Bovis Lend Lease LMB v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 27 A.D.3d 84 (1st Dep't 2005), "The purpose of §3420(d) is to 'protect the insured, the injured person, and any other interested party who has a real stake in the outcome, from being prejudiced by a belated denial of coverage' [citation omitted] … . It is clear that the notice requirement of §3420(d) is designed to protect the insured, and the injured person or other claimant against the risk, posed by a delay in learning the insurer's position, of expending energy and resources in an ultimately futile attempt to recover damages from an insurer or forgoing alternative methods for recovering damages until it is too late to pursue them successfully [citation omitted]." 27 A.D.3d at 91, 92.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBig Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Are Dominated by Small Cap Listings
The Benefits of E-Filing for Affordable, Effortless and Equal Access to Justice
7 minute readA Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
13 minute readShifting Sands: May a Court Properly Order the Sale of the Marital Residence During a Divorce’s Pendency?
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250