April 24, 2009

Bhatt v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 03301)

Headnote

The main issue of the case was whether the defendant, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, had properly disclaimed coverage under the supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits of an automobile insurance policy issued to the plaintiff, Sukeerti Bhatt. Plaintiff had promptly notified defendant of a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved, as required by the policy, and filed a claim for no-fault benefits shortly thereafter. However, plaintiff did not notify defendant of her claim under the SUM endorsement until almost three years after the accident. The court considered the question of whether the defendant must establish that it was prejudiced by the late notice of the SUM claim in order to properly disclaim coverage. The court ultimately held that defendant had failed to establish that it was prejudiced by plaintiff's delay in providing notice of the SUM claim, and therefore affirmed the denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Bhatt v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2009 NY Slip Op 03301)

Bhatt v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

2009 NY Slip Op 03301 [61 AD3d 1406]

April 24, 2009

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Sukeerti Bhatt, Respondent, v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant.

—[*1] Mura & Storm, PLLC, Buffalo (Roy A. Mura of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Longstreet & Berry, LLP, Syracuse (Martha Berry of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Samuel D. Hester, J.), entered January 11, 2008. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover supplemental uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) benefits under an automobile insurance policy issued to her by defendant. Under the SUM endorsement, plaintiff was required to give defendant notice of a claim “[a]s soon as practicable.” Plaintiff promptly notified defendant of the motor vehicle accident, which occurred on May 22, 2000, and she filed a claim for no-fault benefits on July 20, 2000. On April 7, 2003, plaintiff gave defendant notice of her claim under the SUM endorsement. Defendant disclaimed coverage on the ground that plaintiff failed to provide timely notice of the SUM claim.

We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. “[W]here an insured previously gives timely notice of the accident, the carrier must establish that it is prejudiced by a late notice of SUM claim before it may properly disclaim coverage” (Rekemeyer v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 468, 476 [2005]). Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff timely notified defendant of the accident and, shortly thereafter, filed a claim for no-fault benefits. Defendant failed to establish that it was prejudiced by plaintiff’s delay in providing notice of the SUM claim (see id. at 475-476). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Peradotto, Carni, Green and Pine, JJ.