Pandora Industries, Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance
Pandora Industries, Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, and Home Insurance Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.), entered March 4, 1992, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The IAS Court correctly held that plaintiff cannot recover on its policy with defendant because of its failure to notify defendant of the loss as soon as practicable (see, Heydt Constr. Corp. v American Home Assur. Co., 146 AD2d 497 , lv dismissed 74 NY2d 651 ). Plaintiff’s good faith belief that the loss was not covered does not excuse the late notice, which was not received until 31 days after the initial loss and after the offending elbow pipe had been replaced and the damaged stock removed. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(finding thirty-one days in violation of prompt notification provision despite good faith belief loss was not covered)
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Indian Harbor Insurance v. City of San Diego
- Myers v. Cigna Property & Casualty Insurance
- United National Insurance v. 515 Ocean Avenue, LLC
- Young Israel Co-Op City v. Guideone Mutual Insurance
- Tower Insurance v. Amsterdam Apartments, LLC
- Reichhold Chem. v. Hartford Acc. Indem., No. Cv88 351982 (May 12, 1994)
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.