Majority
In an action for a judgment declaring, inter alia, that the plaintiff is not obli
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff disclaimed coverage of its insured in the underlying action “with reasonable promptness” (Murphy v Hanover Ins. Co., 239 AD2d 323 , 324; see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Clift, 249 AD2d 800 , 801; Royal Indem. Co. v Belcer, 242 AD2d 899 ). Therefore, the appellants were properly denied summary judgment.
The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Murphy v. Hanover Insurance 239 AD2d 323 at 324 p. 376
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Clift 249 AD2d 800 at 801 p. 376
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. Belcer 242 AD2d 899 p. 376