Cortes v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
William Cortes v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
Notice of the accident to the insurance broker was not notice to the insurance carrier, defendant here. (See *1063 Allen v. German American Ins. Co., 123 N. Y. 6 .) The insurance policy defendant issued to Alvarez, its insured, required written notice of an accident to he given to the company as soon as practicable. Since the record fails to disclose a reasonable explanation or an adequate excuse, a delay of 58 days before written notice was given defendant is untimely and unreasonable as a matter of law, and not a fulfillment of the condition of the policy. (See Vanderbilt v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 265 App. Div. 495 .)
The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint on the merits, with costs.
Concur — Hoestadter, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.
Judgment reversed, etc.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.