In Sirius America Ins. Co. v. Vigo Constr. Corp. (48 AD3d 450, 452, 852 N.Y.S.2d 176 [2d Dept 2008]), the Court held that absent an explanation for a disclaimer delay, a 34-day delay in disclaiming coverage "was unreasonable as a matter of law and thus ineffective."
The Court, in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Swinton (27 AD3d 462, 811 N.Y.S.2d 108 [2d Dept 2006]), instructed that "the 34-day delay by proposed additional respondent . . . in issuing a disclaimer was unreasonable," because the additional insurer failed to demonstrate that the delay was attributable to the claims adjustor's investigation of whether the insured attempted to notify insurer of the accident through an insurance agent.
It was ascertainable from the policy that the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was not listed as a driver on the policy.
In Pav-Lak Industries, Inc. v. Arch Ins. Co. (56 AD3d 287, 287-288, 866 N.Y.S.2d 671 [1d Dept 2008]), the Court held that the insurer's 45-day delay in disclaiming coverage was "unreasonable as a matter of law" because there was no need for an investigation, because the basis for the disclaimer was "readily apparent" from other insurer's tender letter.