American Home Assurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceAmerican Home Assurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
—In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company has an obligation to defend and indemnify the defendants Aysha Z. Siddiqui and Michelle V. Weithers in a wrongful death action entitled Goshin v Siddiqui pending in the Supreme Court, Queens County, the defendant Arnold Go-shin appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Shifrin, R.), dated January 12, 2000, as declared that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is not obligated to defend or indemnify Aysha Z. Siddiqui and Michelle V. Weithers in the wrongful death action.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The decedent Harry Fisher was killed when he was struck by a car in Queens on November 3, 1993. The offending vehicle
Pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (3), written notice by or on behalf of the injured party shall be deemed notice to the carrier. The notice must be given as soon as reasonably possible (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [a] [4]), and the injured party has the burden of proving that he or she, or counsel acted diligently in attempting to ascertain the identity of the insurer and, thereafter, expeditiously notified the insurer (see, Serravillo v Sterling Ins. Co.,
We agree with the Supreme Court that Goshin failed to meet his burden of proving that he or the attorneys he consulted in this matter acted diligently in identifying State Farm as the insurance carrier of the offending vehicle and thereafter expeditiously notifying State Farm of the accident. Assuming that the initial delay in providing notice was excusable because Goshin was a Florida resident and was unaware of the particulars of the accident, he knew by October 1994 of the potential for a wrongful death action. The delay of seven months thereafter in obtaining the police report of the accident was unreasonable, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for the subsequent delay in contacting the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles for insurance information (see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Romero,
The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.