top of page


Time is of the Essence in NY

February 3, 2023

Share to:

<p style="text-align: justify;"><span>At the end of 2022, a New York Federal Court granted summary judgement in favor of the <em>Great Northern Insurance Co</em>. (a/k/a Chubb) and found it proper to deny a $1.5 million insurance claim for missing art. <em>Philip Weintraub &amp; Jamelia <a href="">Weintraub v. Great Northern Insurance Co.</a></em>, 2022 WL 17993903 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2022). The insured’s 2019 coverage period with Chubb started from August 18, 2019 to August 18, 2020. The insured discovered the art was missing one week after the 2019 policy coverage began. Since the insured was last in the barn where the art was stored back in October 2018, the loss could have occurred at any moment during that period of time. </span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span>The insured’s loss was not covered under the 2019 policy because the insured, under New York law, did not meet the burden to prove that the loss occurred within the coverage period of 2019. The insured’s loss was not covered under the 2018 policy either, even though the insured has maintained continuous coverage with Chubb since the 1990s. The insured failed to submit any notice of loss “as soon as possible” as required by the 2018 policy. Indeed, the insured did not file the lawsuit until more than two years after the loss. Interestingly, the court noted that the language that requires notice of loss “as soon as possible” was only explicitly included in the 2018 policy, not 2019 policy. If such language was not included in the policy delivered to the insured or readily available to the insured online, then such term has no binding effect. </span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thanks to Sherry Lin for her contribution to this post. Please contact <a href="">Heather Aquino</a> with any questions</p>

Headshot of Staff Member


bottom of page