Ponok Realty Corp. v. United National Specialty Insurance
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The plaintiffs argument that the “prejudice” rule articulated in Insurance Law § 3420 (c) (2) (A), governs this case is unavailing. A 2008 amendment to Insurance Law § 3420 (c) (2) (A) (see L 2008, ch 388, § 4) provides that where “an insurer alleges that it was prejudiced as a result of a failure to provide timely notice, the burden shall be on . . . the insurer to prove that it has been prejudiced” if the notice was provided within two years of the time required under the policy (see Insurance Law § 3420 [c] [2] [A] [i]). However, it is clear from section 8 of the act amending Insurance Law…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lanza v. WagnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1962
- Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- Argo Corp. v. Greater New York Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
- Auerbach v. Board of Education of the City School DistrictNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Genova v. Regal Marine Industries, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Howard & Norman Baker, Ltd. v. American Safety Casualty InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Chiarello v. RioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Bigman Brothers, Inc. v. QBE InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Indian Harbor Insurance v. City of San DiegoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- L&B Estates, LLC v. Allstate InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.