 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. General Star Indemnity Co.11/25/2002
nter alia, that its disclaimer was timely and effective. We reverse.
The Supreme Court improperly concluded that the State was not entitled to indemnification in the employee's lawsuit under the General Star policy which was issued to GBE (see generally North Star Reinsurance Corp. v. Continental Ins. Co., 82 NY2d 281). In any event, General Star failed to timely disclaim such coverage.
It is well settled that if an insurer disclaims liability or denies coverage for bodily injury arising out of an accident, the insurer must give written notice "as soon as is reasonably possible" of such disclaimer "to the insured and the injured person or any other claimant" (Insurance Law ยง 3420 ). It is the insurer's burden to explain the delay in notifying the insured or the injured party of the disclaimer (see Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Persaud, 256 AD2d 502, 504). The reasonableness of any delay is determined from the time the insurer becomes aware of sufficient facts to disclaim coverage or "after it first learns of the accident or grounds for disclaimer" (Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Persaud, supra; see Mount Vernon Hous. Auth. v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 267 AD2d 285, 286).
Here, 13 months after receiving notice of the employee's lawsuit and the State's claim for indemnification, General Star notified GBE and the State that it was disclaiming coverage. No explanation was offered by General Star to justify the lengthy delay for its disclaimer, which was unreasonable as a matter of law (see Markevics v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 97 NY2d 646; Hartford Ins. Co. v. County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028; Interested Underwriters at Lloyds v. Midge Rest. Corp., 283 AD2d 459; Wasserheit v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 271 AD2d 439). Accordingly, the State was entitled to summary judgment declaring that General Star was obligated to indemnify its insured, GBE, in the underlying action (see Markevics v Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., supra).
SANTUCCI, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, O'BRIEN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.
(*4)
|