Legal Opinion
Yerushalmi v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 22, 1990PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
To prevail on its defense of noncooperation defendant insurer must show, by a preponderance of the evidence (Ausch v St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 125 AD2d 43, 46, lv denied 70 NY2d 610), an unreasonable and willful pattern of refusing to answer material and relevant questions or to supply material and relevant documents (Averbuch v Home Ins. Co., 114 AD2d 827, 829). Here, the insured’s noncooperation was not so willful or extreme as to warrant the "extreme penalty” of unconditional dismissal without affording him a "last opportunity” to comply with the several legitimate document demands as…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ausch v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Pogo Holding Corp. v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Averbuch v. Home InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Ninth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'nAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
3Cited by9 opinions
- Thomson v. State Farm InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1999
- Avarello v. State Farm & Casualty CompanyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Weissberg v. Royal InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- James & Charles Dimino Wholesale Seafood, Inc. v. Royal InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Marmorato v. Allstate InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.