N.Y. Court Rules Insurer Must Show Prejudice to Deny Claim Based on Late Notice

May 10, 2004

  • May 10, 2004 at 9:09 am
    f michael conte says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    i have seen carriers use this denial of coverage simply because it was bullit proof. it is about time that the courts have reconized this misuse of claim denial.

  • May 12, 2004 at 5:39 am
    Matt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sometimes “JUSTICE” prevails too – or should I say “can win”.

  • May 14, 2004 at 11:10 am
    John M says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The legal profession always runs to contracts and “the letter of the law”, yet when an insurance carrier says that a policy of insurance, which is a contract, clearly and unambiguously states a condition that MUST be met, and then attempts to live by the “letter of that contract”, the lawyers, through liberal and consumer activist courts, add interpretation for proof of prejudice upon the carrier. Carrier’s are held to a standard of clarity, as they “write” the policy. Yet, even when clarity is present, the imposition of further criteria that must be met, after the issuance of the contract, now seems to be the focus of the courts. This is just another example of our legal system, especially the courts, going to the “Nth” degree, needlessly, to avoid making the individual responsible for his or her own actions.

  • May 17, 2004 at 10:47 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Contracts should be adhered to by all parties to a contract. However, an insured should not be penalized for a senseless clause in a policy. Eg. If by oversight an alleged slip and fall is not reported to the company promptly what difference does that make to the claim? What meaningful action could the company have taken to minimize the loss iff it would have been reeported earlier? The late report did not increase the hazard or the payout on this particular loss.

  • May 18, 2004 at 10:19 am
    Lorraine says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Initial reaction to this ruling is “What, when we are shortening notification time in most instances”. Upon review of the entire ruling, I would venture to guess that it took at least 9 months to find a policy that is 21 years old…….Justice must look into all aspects of a suit, not just the obvious. Great balance of the weights of a dilemma.

  • May 27, 2004 at 10:15 am
    Julie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is getting easier and easier for people to win lawsuits. What don’t we just forget about all of the fine print and make insurance companies pay EVERY CLAIM. Who cares that it is you and I that end up paying for it in higher costs EVERYWHERE–doctor’s offices have to raise rates they charge us b/c malpractice costs thru the roof b/c of law suits, cost of construction higher b/c contractors insurance higher due to law suits, etc—the only ones getting rich are the lawyers and the few “lottery winners” who are suing. Society is “sue happy” and I AM SICK OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am sick of hearing people say that they need money so they are going to sue the tuna manufacturer b/c they found a bone THAT DIDN’T EVEN HURT THEM. I am sick of all of the 800 law am pm hotline lawyer ads. I am sick of the courts CONSTANTLY siding with the sue happy people and against insurance companies. The insurance policy is apparently only a contract if being one is helpful to the claimant and his/her attorntey. Otherwise would be better used as toilet paper. And all you people that are happy with this decision–don’t you dare complain the next time your insurance rates go up, or your grocery bill, or the movie prices, or the cost to eat out……



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*