Massot v Utica First Ins. Co.

Annotate this Case
Massot v Utica First Ins. Co. 2007 NY Slip Op 00378 [36 AD3d 499] January 18, 2007 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Dolores Massot, Appellant,
v
Utica First Insurance Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

—[*1] Jason Bijur, Brooklyn, for appellant. Faust Goetz Schenker & Blee LLP, New York (Matthew B. Stein of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered November 9, 2005, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant Utica's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this declaratory judgment action arising from Utica's disclaimer of coverage, although Classic Nails did not report plaintiff's injury until four months after it occurred it did so immediately upon being served with plaintiff's summons and complaint. Under the circumstances, given plaintiff's own testimony that she experienced no pain, considered the wound superficial, and did not initially seek medical treatment for her injury, Classic's four-month delay was reasonable (see Kelly v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 174 AD2d 481, 483 [1991]).

Nevertheless, contrary to plaintiff's assertion, and regardless of any interpretation of the term "unlicensed operator," Utica's denial of coverage on the additional basis of the policy's exclusion for services rendered by an unlicensed employee, or products or equipment used in violation of the law, which identified the applicable policy exclusion and set forth the factual basis for the insurer's position that the claim fell within such exclusion, was sufficiently specific to render such notice timely (see Insurance Law § 3420 [d]; Realm Natl. Ins. Co. v Hermitage Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 110 [2004]). Moreover, the investigative reports submitted by Utica—finding no evidence the disputed service was rendered by a licensed pedicurist, and that the service was performed with a sharp instrument as prohibited by law—were sufficient to support Utica's reliance on the exclusion. [*2]

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Sweeny, JJ.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.