Serlin v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that insurer did not have to disclaim coverage for accident involving automobile that was not the subject of the insurance policies in question
• concluding that 12 insurer did not have to disclaim coverage for accident involving 13 automobile that was not the subject of the insurance policies in 14 question
• explaining that “the failure to disclaim coverage does not create coverage which the policy was not written to provide”
• noting that Insurance Law § 3420(d) “was enacted to avoid prejudice to the insured, [and] the injured claimant ... [who] could be harmed by delay in learning of the carrier’s position” (internal citation omitted)
• relying on presumption that legislature did not intend unreasonable result and construing statutory language in light of purpose
• denial of coverage for purposes of § 3420(d)(2) (then § 167(8)) “does not encompass denial that the policy as written could not have covered the liability in question under any circumstances”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).