The New York Court of Appeals recently reaffirmed the "no-prejudice" rule within the primary liability context in Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co. Inc. Justice Catterson from the Appellate Division, First Department went out on a limb in the concurring opinion below, stating that an insurer company must demonstrate that it was prejudiced by an insured's late notice of claim or occurrence before a disclaimer on that basis will be upheld (see First Department decision here and prior post on that decision). Notably, Justice Catterson also wrote a decision about the no-prejudice rule before joining the First Department (see decision Download 510029155199814SCIV.pdf and prior post).
The Court of Appeals rejected the abandonment of the no-prejudice rule in the primary liability context, upholding its recent decision in Argo Corp. v. Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co.
For further analysis on these developments, please see the comments I have provided at www.insurancescrawl.com. The entry is entitled "Notice this Case." Thanks.
Posted by: Marc Mayerson | June 28, 2005 at 10:29 AM
There are also two articles on the no-prejudice rule, one of which I wrote, in the current NYSBA Torts, Insurance and Compensation Section Journal for those who are members of the TICL Section.
Posted by: Nelson Timken | June 30, 2005 at 09:42 AM