NEW YORK METHODIST HOSPITAL v. Travelers, Nass. Sup. Ct.
This comes by way of a comment in the below post.
And onto the decision, in relevant parts:
A review of the Denial of Claim Form , NF- 10, of that date (Exhibit “D” annexed to cross-motion), apparently sent to the insured , shows an incomplete Form , with items 23-32 missing….. . .[C]ounsel for WESTCHESTER points out that, notwithstanding the discrepancy in the amount in dispute, the Denial of Claim is beyond the thirty (30) day period permitted by statute (biling received on July 23 2007 and denial made on August 25, 2007) and is late on its face. He states that even the earlier denial to the insured , dated May 16, 2007 , is substantially incomplete and therefore defective.
. . .After a careful reading of the submissions herein , the Court credits the analysis of WESTCHESTER, that the denial of claim forms forwarded to both the insured and the carrier are incomplete and defective.
. . .Although TRAVELERS argues that the claim was previously denied on the basis of claimant’s failure to notify the carrier within thirt (30) days of the accident, in a N-F5 form forwarded to the insured on May 16 , 2005, said form is also incomplete and defective in many ways.
In the end, the Court dismissed one claim as premature and granted Summary Judgment to plaintiff as to the other (late denials based on late notice of claim). The first cause of action was withdrawn.
Have a look at Coverage Counsel’s treatment of this case for a different perspective.