Mallory v. Allstate Ins. Co.
(2nd Dept., decided 12/6/2011)
Section 216.6 (c) of New York Insurance Regulation 64 (Title 11 NYCRR Part 216) requires an insurer, "[w]ithin 15 business days after receipt by the insurer of a properly executed proof of loss and/or receipt of all items, statements and forms which the insurer requested from the claimant," (30 days if the insurer suspects that the claim involves arson) to advise a claimant, or a claimant's representative, in writing, (1) of its acceptance or rejection of the claim, or (2) that it needs more time to determine whether the claim should be accepted or rejected. Thereafter, if the claim remains unsettled, unless the matter is in litigation or arbitration, the insurer must, 90 days from the date of the initial letter setting forth the need for further time to investigate, and every 90 days thereafter, send to the claimant or the claimant's authorized representative a letter setting forth the reasons additional time is needed for investigation. These letters are sometimes called "delay letters" by property claims representatives.
What if the insurer fails to comply with this regulatory requirement by not responding to the insured's proof of loss or claim submission or sending the 90-day delay letters within the required time period? Is the insurer precluded from raising and relying on policy exclusions to deny coverage? No, says the Appellate Division, Second Department. Again.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the proceeds of a fire insurance policy. Allstate asserted several affirmative defenses based on policy exclusions. Plaintiff moved to dismiss Allstate's exclusion-based affirmative defenses on the ground that it was precluded from raising those defenses because of its failure to comply with 11 NYCRR § 216.6(c) in processing the plaintiff's claim. Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion and, reaffirming its 2004 decision in De Marinis v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y., the Appellate Division AFFIRMED:
The potential consequence of not complying with 216.6(c) is administrative sanction, not defense preclusion.In De Marinis v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. (6 AD3d 484, 486-487), this Court held that a failure to comply with 11 NYCRR 216.6(c) does not preclude an insurance company from relying on a policy exclusion to disclaim coverage. We decline the plaintiff's invitation to overrule De Marinis. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the defenses were without merit as a matter of law (see CPLR 3211[b]; Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP v Liotti, 81 AD3d 880, 882).
Editor's Note (02.07.14) ~~ The New York Court of Appeals unanimously AFFIRMED this decision on August 28, 2012, holding:
Under the facts of this case, the Appellate Division correctly determined that an insurer's failure to comply with 11 NYCRR 216.6 (c) in processing a claim does not preclude that insurer from relying upon a policy exclusion to disclaim coverage.