2416 Newkirk v. Wesco Ins. Co. et al., Kings Co Index No 502342 (NY Sup. Ct. June 15, 2018)
This first-party insurance litigation involved insurance claims for a theft that occurred in an apartment building located at 2416 Newkirk Avenue, Brooklyn, and a separate claim for costs associated with damage to the building’s roof that allegedly occurred as a result of a storm. These losses allegedly occurred in September 2014 and July 2016. The insured notified Wesco of the losses in May 2016 and July 2017. By that time, the roof had been replaced. Wesco denied both claims.
In the litigation that ensued, Wesco moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the claims for theft and roof damage were barred by the insured’s late notice. Wesco additionally argued that coverage for the roof damage was precluded on account of the insured’s failure to preserve the allegedly-damaged roof for inspection, and also contended that there was no coverage for the theft claim because the insured failed to comply with the policy’s two-year suit limitation.
Given that the loss and notice dates could not be disputed, the insured argued that discovery was required before the parties could file dispositive motions. The trial judge disagreed, holding that “Wesco’s summary judgment motion to dismiss the Complaint is granted in its entirety on the merits, on the basis plaintiff failed to provide timely notice of the claims to Wesco in accordance with the Conditions section of the subject policy.”