Coverage Pointers - Volume VII, No. 25
Dear Coverage Pointers Subscribers:
Greeting from the land of beautiful summers. Alright. Enough small talk. Let's get down to business. Keep this one under your hat although you may read about it in the supermarket tabloids
I don't know how to explain this to you. OK, I'll try. I cannot guarantee that this is what happened, but I can't think of too many other explanations .
There is mischief afoot in Albany, home of the New York State Court of Appeals. While the Court officers were at lunch, someone must have slipped in the back-door of that beautiful courthouse, hog-tied the judges, taken them to a secret location and slipped in imposters.
That might begin to explain the two of the insurance-related decisions handed down by New York's highest court this week.
Now don't get me started. I have given you full and complete and much-longer-than-usual summaries of New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Aquirreand Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford v. Cook in the attached issue. Suffice it to say, in the NY Central case, the Court held that a carrier must deny a claim on failure to provide timely proof before proof has been provided and in the Automobile Insurance case, the Court held that a person who takes a gun, aims it at an individual, pulls the trigger and admits that he intended to shoot him may still get homeowners coverage for an accidental shooting.
What is the next in the wacky world of insurance? Stay tuned.
For those of you who are attending the FDCC Litigation Management College or the Litigation Management College Graduate Program at Emory, I look forward to meeting you there.Dan
Dan D. Kohane