Although the issue was vigorously contested before the Referee and is argued again before us, we assume, for purpose of this appeal, that on or about February 9, 1991, plaintiff gave notice to Aetna of her January 23, 1991 slip-and-fall accident which allegedly occurred on the individual defendants' premises. Because the insurance at issue was a "Homeowner's" policy, which specifically excluded rental property from liability coverage, Aetna disclaimed coverage by notice dated April 22, 1991, on the ground that the premises had been occupied in January 1991 by two separate tenant families. This is an action by the accident victim to enforce coverage from Aetna.
Most cases addressing the reasonableness of delay in disclaiming coverage involve something much more substantial than the 72 days at issue here. ( See, e.g., Allstate Ins. Co. v Macaluso, 217 A.D.2d 424 [where a disclaimer served more than 19 months after the complaint in the underlying action was held unreasonable].)
The disposition of this case is to be guided by our decision in Norfolk Dedham Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Petrizzi ( 121 A.D.2d 276, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 611), wherein we found a two-month delay in sending a notice of disclaimer to have been reasonably justified. ( Cf., Hartford Ins. Co. v. County of Nassau, 46 N.Y.2d 1028 [wherein the Court of Appeals found a wholly unexplained delay of similar duration to be unreasonable as a matter of law].) Here, the delay — slightly more than two months — has been satisfactorily explained and justified by the failure of Aetna's computer tracking system to discover plaintiff's February notice of claim, and by the reasonable period of time required to complete the carrier's investigation of the claim.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.