Weintraub v. Great Northern Insurance Company

Background

The Weintraubs sought insurance coverage for an apparent theft from their collection of art and antiquities. The collection included items stored at their Wassaic country house, in their New York City cooperative apartment, and in Dr. Weintraub’s New York City office. The relevant policy was Great Northern’s 2019–2020 Masterpiece Policy covering the Weintraubs’ New York City apartment.

On August 25, 2019, Dr. Weintraub discovered that a storage room in a barn at the Wassaic property was in disarray. He suspected theft, reported the matter to police on August 30, and called Chubb on November 23 to make the insurance claim after police told him in November that their investigation had been unsuccessful. Great Northern and Chubb were used interchangeably in the opinion because Great Northern underwrote the policy, while Chubb serviced and investigated the claim.

Great Northern denied the claim and asserted, among other things, that the Weintraubs had unreasonably delayed notifying the insurer. The relevant policy language required an insured to notify the insurer or its agent of a potentially covered loss “as soon as possible.”

Prior motion and limited trial

Great Northern previously moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on the late-notice defense. The court denied that motion because the complaint alleged that the policy version sent to the Weintraubs and the version available through the online portal did not contain the page with the notice requirement. The court also held that the complaint plausibly alleged that Great Northern might have abandoned or waived the late-notice defense through its claims investigation, although that issue depended on factual questions.

With the parties’ consent, the court held a two-day limited bench trial—meaning a trial decided by the judge rather than a jury—on whether Great Northern could establish the factual basis for enforcing the late-notice defense. Discovery had been expedited and limited to that issue.

Findings of fact

The 2019 policy mailed to the Weintraubs did not include the “New York Policy Terms,” known as the Y-Pages. Page Y-5 contained the notice requirement. The materially identical digital policy available through the Chubb client portal also did not include the Y-Pages. Great Northern later produced a certified copy of the policy that included them, but a Chubb representative conceded that the complete policy had not been mailed to the Weintraubs or posted on their portal.

The delivered 2019 policy included a table of contents referring generally to “Policy Terms,” but it did not tell the Weintraubs to consult an earlier policy or another document to find the missing pages. The court found that the Y-Pages had been inadvertently omitted from the 2019 policy.

The Weintraubs had received materially identical Y-Pages in a 2018 policy and in a separate policy covering their Wassaic home. The 2018 policy remained available through the online portal, although Dr. Weintraub had discarded the paper copy after receiving the 2019 renewal policy. The court found no evidence that Chubb or the insurance broker directed the Weintraubs to use another policy to obtain the complete terms of the 2019 policy.

Court’s ruling

The court held that Great Northern’s failure to deliver the Y-Pages with the 2019 policy, or to provide reasonable access to the complete policy through the online portal, prevented Great Northern from enforcing the notice-of-loss requirement as a condition of coverage.

The court distinguished cases involving undelivered coverage exclusions or limitations. Those provisions can sometimes be enforced when incorporated into an insurance contract even if the insured did not receive the specific page. The court concluded that this principle did not establish that an insurer may enforce an undelivered procedural requirement governing how an insured must make a claim, particularly where the insured was not shown to have been aware of that requirement.

The court also rejected Great Northern’s arguments that the 2019 policy incorporated the 2018 policy or that the Weintraubs could be expected to reconstruct the complete 2019 policy by comparing different insurance contracts. The court concluded that Great Northern had no contractual basis to enforce the requirement that notice be given “as soon as possible.” Great Northern’s late-notice defense was therefore precluded.

Because this ruling resolved the contractual-delivery issue, the court did not decide whether Great Northern’s conduct during the investigation impliedly waived the late-notice defense. The opinion also noted that Great Northern had reserved possible defenses based on concealment or fraud, failure to sue within two years under a predecessor policy, and intentional-acts or misappropriation exclusions. Great Northern could seek permission to amend its answer if it chose to pursue those defenses. The court lifted the discovery stay and directed the parties to prepare a case-management plan for the remaining litigation.