Since the New York Court of Appeals’ holdings in Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Mut. Ins. Co. and Rekemeyer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. regarding late notice of claim to an insurer, the insurance coverage/defense bar has been eager to see how courts will apply the modified no-prejudice rule (see prior post).  Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. of Midwest v. Gamiel provides some insight — although it doesn’t grapple the actual prejudice issue.   The Court’s holding seems to be (a hate this expression) a "no brainer." 

The respondent provided  her notice of claim for SUM benefits under the SUM coverage to the petitioner insurer at least 16 months after the respondent’s receipt of notice that the tortfeasor’s insurer was insolvent and in liquidation.  The Appellate Division, First Department held that the notice was not provided "as soon as practicable," as required by the policy, and was untimely as a matter of law.

I am waiting for the case where the insurer has to demonstrate prejudice for the late notice of claim, thereby forcing the Court to provide a clear discussion of prejudice in these contexts.