Northern Insurance Co. of New York v. City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding it clear that the underlying complaint was outside any potential for coverage because almost two and half years had passed before the insured notified the insurer of the lawsuit
• no duty to defend, and no estoppel, if the client does not give the insurer “an opportunity to participate” in the underlying suit
• “insured who knows a suit against it exists but allows considerable length of time to pass before notifying its insurer does not automatically lose coverage”
• “The City [of Chicago]... possessing its own in-house legal department, is hardly unsophisticated in commercial and insurance matters.”
• city’s 2V2-year delay in notifying insurer of lawsuit and settling the suit after insurer denied coverage relieved insurer of duty to defend; consequently, estoppel could not be applied against insurer
• city's 2½year delay in notifying insurer of lawsuit and settling the suit after insurer denied coverage relieved insurer of duty to defend, consequently estoppel could not be applied against insurer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).