AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

RICHARD HEROLD et al., Appellants, v. EAST COAST SCAFFOLDING, INC., Defendant, and U.S. CAPITAL INSURANCE, Respondent.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On April 24, 1991, the plaintiff Richard Herold, a construction project supervisor, was injured on a work site when certain scaffolding collapsed. On August 15, 1991, the plaintiffs commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries and loss of services against, inter alia, East Coast Scaffolding (hereinafter East Coast), which initially appeared in the action by services of an answer in September 1991. Seven months later, East Coast notified the plaintiffs that its insurer, U.S. Capital Insurance (hereinafter U.S. Capital) had disclaimed coverage and that East Coast had filed for bankruptcy. The plaintiff then instituted this action for a declaratory judgment on the issue of proper disclaimer. In lieu of an answer, U.S. Capital moved for summary judgment based on untimely notice of the underlying occurrence.

An insured's good faith belief in nonliability, when reasonable under the circumstances, may excuse a delay in notifying his insurer of an "occurrence". Whether such a belief was, in fact, reasonable, is ordinarily a question of fact (see, Argentina v Otsego Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 207 A.D.2d 816; Winstead v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 170 A.D.2d 500).

In this declaratory judgment action, the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that the 3-1/2 month delay in East Coast's notification of its insurer was reasonable under the circumstances (see, White v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 955; Security Mut. Ins. Co. v. Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436; Winstead v Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 201 A.D.2d 721; Eveready Ins. Co. v. Levine, 145 A.D.2d 526). Here, the plaintiffs' "questions of fact" are speculative and unsubstantiated and, as such, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Since the plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden, we find no basis for disturbing the conclusion of the Supreme Court (see, Deso v. London Lancaster Indem. Co., 3 N.Y.2d 127; Elkowitz v. Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co., 180 A.D.2d 711). Sullivan, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HEROLD v. EAST COAST SCAFFOLDING, INC
(Oct 11, 1994)