In Great Canal Realty Corp. v. Seneca Ins. Co. (6/15/05), a unanimous court rejected an insured's claim that its late notice of an occurrence was excusable. 

     In the underlying action, plaintiff fell from a ladder on May 7, 2002 during renovation work on a property owned by Great Canal.  A foreman, employed by the general contractor, notified Great Canal’s owner of the accident a few weeks later.  The foreman told the owner that the problem would be taken care of under the general contractor’s insurance, which covered Great Canal as an additional insured.

       On August 14, 2002, plaintiff commenced an action against Great Canal alleging violations of Labor Law §§200, 240, and 241.  Great Canal was served with process in September 2002 and notified its insurer, Seneca Insurance, on September 10, 2002.  Seneca disclaimed on the basis of late notice as a result of the four months between the accident and notification. 

       In opposition to Seneca’s motion for summary judgment, Great Canal asserted that it did not give notice to