The motion court properly found that the personal injury cases in the underlying actions against plaintiffs were such that, under the policy, plaintiffs were required to provide defendant with prompt notice, which they failed to do. Accordingly, we find that defendant properly disclaimed and had no obligation to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in the underlying actions. We modify only to the extent of issuing a declaration to that effect (see, Lanza v Wagner,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
RED APPLE COMPANIES, INC. v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY
269 A.D.2d 208 (2000)
703 N.Y.S.2d 101
RED APPLE COMPANIES, INC., et al., Appellants, and WILLIAMS REAL ESTATE CO. et al., Respondents, v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Respondents.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided February 10, 2000.
Decided February 10, 2000.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
