Minasian v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Co.
676 F. App'x 29
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Nikolai and Harutyun Minasian alleged a burglary on January 1, 2014 and discovered the loss the same day.
- They held multiple insurance policies (IDS/Ameriprise and State Farm) covering theft; each policy required notice to insurer “as soon as reasonably possible,” “immediately,” or “as soon as practicable.”
- Plaintiffs did not notify insurers until March 28, 2014 (86 days after the loss).
- Plaintiffs reported the theft to police on January 1 but claimed they reasonably believed the ongoing police investigation justified delay in notifying insurers.
- District court granted summary judgment for insurers; Second Circuit affirmed, reasoning plaintiffs’ 86-day delay was unreasonable as a matter of law and policy language was unambiguous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of notice | Minasian: notice was timely because they relied on ongoing police investigation and notified insurers promptly after learning it was closed | Insurers: policy required prompt notice; 86-day delay was unreasonable as a matter of law | Court: Delay (86 days) unreasonable; timely notice is a condition precedent and failure relieves insurer of coverage obligation |
| Excuse for delay based on police investigation | Minasian: reasonable belief police might recover property excused delay | Insurers: belief in recovery does not excuse timely notice obligations | Court: Belief in possible recovery does not excuse delay; insureds knew of the loss and should have notified insurer sooner |
| Ambiguity of term “covered loss” | Minasian: "covered loss" ambiguous and should be construed against insurers | Insurers: term is plain; theft known on Jan 1 plainly fits covered loss definition | Court: Term unambiguous; known theft is a covered loss regardless of active police investigation |
| Lack of sophistication as excuse | Minasian: plaintiffs were unsophisticated and lacked knowledge to provide prompt notice | Insurers: insureds’ actions (purchasing coverage, obtaining appraisals) show sophistication; no precedent excusing delay for lack of sophistication | Court: Lack of sophistication does not excuse untimely notice; not a recognized basis under New York law |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. City of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 955 (N.Y. 1993) (timely notice is a condition precedent to coverage)
- Briggs Ave. LLC v. Ins. Corp. of Hannover, 11 N.Y.3d 377 (N.Y. 2008) (failure to give timely notice relieves insurer of coverage regardless of prejudice)
- Sparacino v. Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co., 50 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 1995) (notice triggered when circumstances would suggest possibility of a claim to a reasonable person)
- Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co., 5 N.Y.3d 742 (N.Y. 2005) ("as soon as practicable" requires notice within a reasonable period)
- Breed v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 46 N.Y.2d 351 (N.Y. 1978) (test for ambiguity: whether language has definite and precise meaning)
- Federal Ins. Co. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 642 (N.Y. 2012) (contract interpretation principles governing ambiguity)
- Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 601 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2010) (distinguished by court; involved accrual/timeliness ambiguity rather than coverage term meaning)