Katz v. Allstate Insurance Company

In Katz v. Allstate Insurance Company (96 A.D.2d 930 [2d Dept 1983]), the Court held that an insurer is not required under Insurance Law 167 (8) to give notice of disclaimer, where at the time of accident the insured's automobile had been stolen and was being operated by a thief without knowledge or consent of the insured, and plaintiff was aware from the inception that the vehicle had been stolen and was being operated by a thief. The Court stated (at 931): "The policy clearly never contemplated any coverage while the vehicle was in the hands of a thief. Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, this is not a situation where both the driver and the vehicle were covered, but there was no insurance '"by reason of exclusion"'; rather, there is no insurance protection here by '"lack of inclusion"', and written notice was, therefore, not required"