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

In the Matter of ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent, v. PAUL M. KASHKIN, Appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant's decedent was the victim of a hit-and-run accident on April 19, 1985. The court found, based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, that oral notification was provided to the respondent, Allstate Insurance Company, on September 10 or 12, 1985, and written notice was mailed on November 5, 1985. The insurance policy required that written notice be provided within 90 days. Thus, the court held that timely notice had not been provided. We agree.

An insured must give notice to his or her insurer within the time limit provided in the insurance policy or within a reasonable time under all the circumstances (see, Security Mut. Ins. Co. v. Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436; Insurance Law § 3420). Absent a valid excuse, failure to satisfy the notice requirement in an insurance policy vitiates coverage (Security Mut. Ins. Co. v. Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., supra; State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Romero, 109 A.D.2d 786).

In this case, the appellant failed to establish a valid excuse for the failure to comply with the notice requirements of the policy in question, and the application to permanently stay arbitration was, therefore, properly granted. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. v. KASHKIN
(May 26, 1987)