Legal Opinion

Maughn v. RLI Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 22, 2009PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*1068On their motion for summary judgment, the defendants Fay Neiss and 91-01 through 91-11 Church Limited Liability (hereinafter Church) met their burden of establishing that the defendant RLI Insurance Company (hereinafter RLI) did not properly disclaim coverage as to them by submitting RLI’s disclaimer letter, which was not addressed to them specifically (see Matter of Eveready Ins. Co. v Dabach, 176 AD2d 879 [1991]). In response, RLI failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Although actual notice of RLI’s disclaimer letter may have been sent to the address at which all of the moving defendants…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lanza v. WagnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1962
  2. Eveready Insurance v. DabachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  3. Yarar v. Children's Museum of ManhattanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  4. DeFreitas v. TIG InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Sierra v. 4401 Sunset Park, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  2. AVR-Powell C Dev. Corp. v. Utica First Ins. Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019
  3. Sierra v. 4401 Sunset Park, LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API