700 Camp Street, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-03060
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 700 Camp Street v. Mt. Hawley, Judge Subramanian ordered briefing on whether late insurance notice can be excused under a one-year deadline.
700 Camp Street, LLC and Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, whose positions on the insurance policy’s one-year notice limit were sent for further briefing.
What happened
700 Camp Street, LLC sued Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, which argued that the lawsuit was barred because 700 Camp Street did not comply with the insurance policy’s one-year notice limit. The court noted that some cases say late notice may be excused in certain circumstances, but those cases generally involved requirements to give notice promptly rather than a strict outside deadline.
The court ordered Mt. Hawley to submit, by August 15, 2024, a letter of no more than three single-spaced pages explaining whether the cited cases permit an insured to be excused from missing an outside notice deadline. Mt. Hawley must also address whether 700 Camp Street’s claimed lack of knowledge of damage would qualify as an excuse. 700 Camp Street may submit its own letter on the same questions.
Judge Arun Subramanian issued the order on August 8, 2024. The order did not decide whether the lawsuit is barred or whether 700 Camp Street’s delay can be excused; it requested further briefing on those issues.
The detailed version
- 700 Camp Street, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-03060
- Subramanian
- Aug. 8, 2024
Background
Mt. Hawley Insurance Company argued that 700 Camp Street, LLC’s lawsuit was barred because the plaintiff failed to comply with the insurance policy’s one-year limit for giving notice. The opinion does not provide additional details about the underlying insurance claim or the amount sought.
Issue Identified by the Court
The court examined cases stating that a failure to give timely notice may be excused in some circumstances. The court observed, however, that those cases arose mainly in connection with prompt-notice requirements, rather than an outside deadline—an absolute time limit by which notice must be given. The court said the cases could be read either as requiring consideration of the reason for delay when deciding whether notice was prompt, or as allowing a late notice failure to be excused even when the policy’s notice requirement was not met. Under the latter reading, a strict outside deadline might also be excused in some circumstances.
Order
The court directed Mt. Hawley to submit a letter by August 15, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., explaining whether the cited authorities allow an insured’s failure to comply with an outside notice deadline to be excused. Mt. Hawley must also explain whether, assuming such a failure can be excused, the insured’s lack of knowledge of any damage would qualify as a valid excuse under existing law. The court asked Mt. Hawley to provide its strongest authorities.
700 Camp Street may also submit a letter addressing the questions and providing its strongest authorities. Each letter may not exceed three single-spaced pages.
Disposition
The order requests additional briefing. It does not grant or deny a motion, decide whether 700 Camp Street complied with the policy, or determine whether the lack of knowledge of damage excuses the delayed notice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.