PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Exclusions/Exceptions / “Belt and Suspenders” Don’t Need Zip: Federal New York Court Rejects Timeliness Obligation for Optional Disclaimer

“Belt and Suspenders” Don’t Need Zip: Federal New York Court Rejects Timeliness Obligation for Optional Disclaimer

February 4, 2022 by Carlton Fields

Photo of stamped mail letterIn Adirondack Insurance Exchange v. Banagos, the Eastern District of New York held that an insurer is not required to send a disclaimer letter where a loss does not fall within the scope of the insuring agreement and voluntarily sending a disclaimer letter, including one that discusses exclusions, does not create the obligation to send it in a timely manner.

At issue in the case was a homeowners insurance policy that Adirondack Insurance Exchange issued in favor of two homeowners that extended to their son, who lived with them. The underlying lawsuit arose when an unrelated third party brought an action against the son for personal injuries he allegedly sustained after the son and another individual beat him up in a park.

Adirondack sent a disclaimer letter to the homeowners, which specifically noted that the definition of an occurrence is not met and there were applicable exclusions. Although the carrier noted that the lawsuit did not fall within the scope of the insuring agreement, the carrier agreed to provide a defense until coverage was determined.

The court was presented with the issue whether a carrier is required to give timely notice if the loss did not fall within the scope of the insurance agreement, and if timely notice was not required, whether a carrier assumes an obligation to provide timely notice by sending a disclaimer letter to the insured at all.

The court noted that the issues involved two rules of established New York law. First, if an insurance company seeks to avoid coverage based on the event falling outside the scope of the policy’s insuring agreement, then the insurance company is not required to give timely notice in a disclaimer letter. Without an obligation under the policy, the carrier may wait until the insured makes a demand. Second, timely notice of a disclaimer must be sent to the insured if the carrier seeks to avoid coverage based on an exclusion in the insuring agreement.

The court held that a timely disclaimer was not required, as the loss did not fall within the scope of the insuring agreement. There is no requirement for a disclaimer where an “underlying lawsuit … does not trigger coverage.” The court also rejected the argument that because the carrier chose to send a disclaimer, the carrier “assumed” the obligation to send a timely disclaimer. The court reasoned that a “contract cannot be created or amended by one side’s denial that there is an applicable contract at all.”

Thus, Adirondack was not required to send a disclaimer to the homeowners nor did its obligations alter because it proffered an alternative argument to disclaim coverage under the policy’s exclusions in a letter.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Fifth Circuit Affirms Finding of No Coverage for Phished Funds Never “Held” by Insured

Next Article »

Eleventh Circuit Finds Employer’s Liability Exclusion Ambiguous Under Alabama Law

About Carlton Fields

Related Articles

  1. When Should an Insurer Deny Coverage? The Second Circuit Provides Guidance on What Constitutes a Reasonable Time by Which to Deny Coverage Under New York Law
  2. Poisoning the Well: Washington Supreme Court Applies Efficient Proximate Cause to Eviscerate Pollution Exclusion in Liability Policy
  3. Insurer Prevails in First Substantive Appellate Ruling in COVID-19-Related Insurance Coverage Litigation
Carlton Fields Logo
A blog focused on legal developments in the property-casualty industry by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Get Weekly Updates!

Send Me Updates!

Focused Topics

  • Additional Insured
  • Bad Faith
  • Business Interruption
  • Class Action
  • Construction/Builder’s Risk
  • Coronavirus / COVID-19
  • Cybersecurity
  • Declaratory Judgment
  • Duty to Defend
  • Environmental
  • Flood
  • Homeowners
  • Occurrence
  • Pollution/Pollutant
  • Property
  • Regulatory
  • VIEW ALL TOPICS »

Recent Articles

  • Divided Ninth Circuit Finds Claimant’s Failure to Provide Medical Records Insulates Insurer From Bad Faith Failure to Settle
  • Eighth Circuit Finds No Coverage Under “Ensuing Loss” Provision Under Arkansas Law
  • Texas Appeals Court Finds Project Owner Excluded From Coverage as Claimants’ Statutory Employer

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • ExpectFocus Magazine

Related Industries/Practices

  • Insurance
  • Financial Lines Insurance
  • Property & Casualty Insurance
  • Financial Services & Insurance Litigation

About PropertyCasualtyFocus

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
© 2014–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Web Design by Espo Digital Marketing