Opinion
April 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).
The distinction between "claims made" and "occurrence" policies controls the issue of coverage in this case, not whether defendant-insurer suffered any prejudice as a result of the short delay in giving notice of the claim (Chas. T. Main, Inc. v Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 406 Mass. 862, 865, 551 N.E.2d 28, 30). An insured under a "claims made" policy knows in advance that there is an applicable date that cuts off claims, this being a distinct characteristic of such a policy that directly relates to rate setting (406 Mass, supra, at 864, 551 N.E.2d, supra, at 29). Nor should defendant be estopped from denying coverage since there was no "termination of coverage" under part 73 of the New York State Insurance Department Regulations (11 N.Y.CRR) triggering the notice requirement, and plaintiffs' former company renewed the policy.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.