From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

New York Tele. Co. v. Travelers Casualty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 2001
280 A.D.2d 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

In New York Telephone Company v Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (280 AD2d 268 [1st Dept 2001]), the Court again held that the insured's forwarding of the complaint in the underlying personal injury action to the insurer was sufficient notice to the insurer of possible claims against the additional insureds.

Summary of this case from Empire Surplus Lines Insu. Co. v. Mut. Insu. Co.

Opinion

February 2, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered April 13, 2000, which, inter alia, granted the motion of plaintiff New York Telephone Company for summary judgment, declaring that, as an additional insured under defendant-appellant Time Warner's commercial general liability policy, plaintiff is entitled to be defended and, if necessary, indemnified by Time Warner's insurer, defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Nancy Ledy-Gurren for plaintiff-respondent.

Harry Steinberg for defendants-appellants.

Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Saxe, Friedman, JJ.


Time Warner's forwarding of the summons and complaint in the underlying personal injury action to its carrier Travelers constituted timely notice to Travelers of the occurrence involving New York Telephone, an additional insured under the Travelers policy issued to Time Warner and the only insured party under that policy against whom the summons and complaint had been served (cf., Delco Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 40 A.D.2d 647, affd 3 1 N.Y.2d 1014). Inasmuch as Time Warner's interests were not adverse to those of New York Telephone at the time the summons and complaint were forwarded to Travelers, the notice provided by Time Warner's forwarding of the summons and complaint sufficed to defeat the carrier's affirmative defense of late notice (see, Rose v. State of New York, 265 A.D.2d 473; Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 188 A.D.2d 259, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 709).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

New York Tele. Co. v. Travelers Casualty

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 2, 2001
280 A.D.2d 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

In New York Telephone Company v Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America (280 AD2d 268 [1st Dept 2001]), the Court again held that the insured's forwarding of the complaint in the underlying personal injury action to the insurer was sufficient notice to the insurer of possible claims against the additional insureds.

Summary of this case from Empire Surplus Lines Insu. Co. v. Mut. Insu. Co.
Case details for

New York Tele. Co. v. Travelers Casualty

Case Details

Full title:NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TRAVELERS CASUALTY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 2, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
719 N.Y.S.2d 648

Citing Cases

1700 Broadway, Co. v. Gr. New York Mut. Ins.

If the parties are "united in interest," notice of the suit by one party may suffice as notice by the other.…

St. Paul Travelers v. Mega Constr. Corp.

As Mega had an independent obligation to notify Indian Harbor, it cannot rely upon Gould's April 2004…