In Ringel v. Blue Ridge Ins. Co., (293 AD2d 460 [2d Dept 2002]), an action was commenced against defendant Blue Ridge Insurance's insured for negligence in March 1997. Approximately two months thereafter, the insured's insurance broker notified Blue Ridge of the action, and in June 1997, Blue Ridge requested and was granted a 30-day extension of time to answer the Complaint. Blue Ridge then disclaimed coverage on the ground that its insured failed to provide timely notice of the accident. A default judgment was entered against the insured. Thus, the injured plaintiffs sought a declaration that Blue Ridge was required to defend its insured in the underlying personal injury action and to afford insurance coverage for the accident. The Court held that the insured's notice via the broker was untimely. In defense of Blue Ridge's motion for summary dismissal, the plaintiffs' argued "that they cannot be bound by [the insured'] failure to give timely notice because they had independently notified Blue Ridge when they stipulated to extend Blue Ridge's time to answer. However, the Court held that because the plaintiffs did not exercise due diligence in ascertaining the identity of tortfeasor's insurance company or in notifying tortfeasor's insurer of the accident, the injured plaintiffs' subsequent notice was also untimely. Thus, the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify tortfeasor in underlying action.