Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, Inc.
The case, Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Insurance Company, revolves around an insurer's disclaimer of coverage due to late notice. Plaintiff Great Canal, a property owner, faced an underlying personal injury lawsuit after a worker's accident and notified its insurer, Seneca, four months later, believing a general contractor's policy would cover the incident. The Supreme Court denied Seneca's motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact regarding Great Canal's reasonable excuse for the delay. The appellate court affirmed this denial, with a concurring opinion by Catterson, J., strongly arguing for New York to reconsider its "no-prejudice" rule, which allows insurers to disclaim without proving actual harm from late notice. This opinion highlighted the perceived inequity of such forfeitures and suggested a shift towards a "prejudice" standard, while the dissent emphasized strict adherence to established state precedent.