tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4754540220266106237.post533604565802278957..comments2024-03-17T16:43:50.668-04:00Comments on Coverage Counsel: Late Notice of Occurrence -- 7-Month Delay Found UnreasonableRoy A. Murahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06367888044845855898noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4754540220266106237.post-32522314570792597992008-04-29T20:03:00.000-04:002008-04-29T20:03:00.000-04:00Feelings, nothing more than feelings... No, I don...Feelings, nothing more than feelings... <BR/><BR/>No, I don't think most NY courts will accept an insured's "because I <B>thought</B> I wasn't liable but really didn't do <B>anything</B> to confirm that feeling" excuse for late reporting. The standard seems to have become the following: the duty to give notice arises when, from the information available on the accident, the insured could glean a reasonable possibility of the policy's involvement. <B>Could</B> glean. Not <B>did</B> glean. These two cases can be read to provide that an insured, when aware of an accident resulting in injury, must do SOMETHING to determine whether a claim will be made and the policy will be involved. <BR/><BR/>Do ask. Do tell. Not the opposite.Roy A. Murahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06367888044845855898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4754540220266106237.post-21622479993557055352008-04-29T14:37:00.000-04:002008-04-29T14:37:00.000-04:00I thought "no harm, no foul" was the rule when it ...I thought "no harm, no foul" was the rule when it came to courts rendering decisions against insurers for disclaiming coverage based solely on late notice. In other words, the insured could have had first hand knowledge of the accident, felt he/she was not liable and not report it to the carrier until receipt of a letter of representation or a S&C. This case, and the previous case you have cited on your blawg seems to contradict that theoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com