Legal Opinion
Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance
New York Court of Appeals
Decided June 16, 2005PublishedCited by 153 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted and judgment granted declaring that defendant Seneca Insurance Company is not required to defend and indemnify Great Canal Realty Corp. in the underlying action. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
Where a policy of liability insurance requires that notice of an occurrence be given “as soon as practicable,” such notice must be accorded the carrier within a reasonable period of time (see Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Security Mutual Insurance v. Acker-Fitzsimons Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1972
- White v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Argo Corp. v. Greater New York Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 2005
3Cited by153 opinions
- St. James Mechanical, Inc. v. Royal & SunallianceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- Ponok Realty Corp. v. United National Specialty InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Tower Insurance v. Lin Hsin Long Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- McGovern-Barbash Associates, LLC v. Everest National 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
148 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.