Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DeSantis Bros. v. Allstate Insurance

244 A.D.2d 183

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1997-11-13
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • thirty-one days were reasonable because counsel needed to review a 500-page file and conduct legal research to disclaim coverage
  • delay reasonable because of need to review 500-page file and conduct legal research

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed DeSantis Bros. v. Allstate Insurance. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
8 opinions

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered on or about July 18, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendant Allstate’s cross motion for summary judgment and declared that Allstate timely disclaimed liability under its policy, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Allstate was first notified of a personal liability action against its insured, Brus Corp., almost four years after that action was commenced. Allstate’s May 2, 1986 letter advising Brus of its violation of the prompt notification provision of the policy, and *184 stating that “[therefore * * * we must disclaim coverage for Brus in this case”, was no less a disclaimer letter by virtue of the fact that the letter also offered to defend Brus, while reserving Allstate’s rights and reaffirming that it would not indemnify Brus (compare, Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028). The 31 days that it took Allstate’s attorneys to review the 500-page file and conduct legal research before notifying Brus of the disclaimer was not unreasonable for purposes of Insurance Law § 3420 (d). We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Williams, JJ.