Case ID: ny3d_28/html/0960-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[63 NE3d 66, 40 NYS3d 346]
    Estee Lauder Inc., Respondent, v OneBeacon Insurance Group, LLC, et al., Appellants.
    Decided September 15, 2016
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, D.C. {Harry Lee, of the District of Columbia bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Leah M. Quadrino of counsel), and Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York City {Michael C. Miller and Evan Glassman of counsel), for appellants.
    
      Reed Smith LLP, Washington, D.C. {John W. Schryber of counsel), for respondent.
    
      OMelveny & Myers LLP, New York City {Jonathan D. Hacker and Anton Metlitsky of counsel), for Century Indemnity Company, amicus curiae.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, the order of Supreme Court reinstated, and the certified question answered in the negative.

Analyzing the circumstances under the common-law waiver standard, which requires an examination of all factors, defendants cannot be said to have waived their right to assert the late-notice defense as a matter of law by failing to specifically identify late notice in their disclaimer letters. Defendants identified the late-notice defense in early communications with plaintiff before relying on a reservation of rights in two disclaimer letters. “[U]nder common-law principles, triable issues of fact exist whether defendants clearly manifested an intent to abandon their late-notice defense” (KeySpan Gas E. Corp. v Munich Reins. Am., Inc., 23 NY3d 583, 591 [2014]). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for leave to amend their answer to reassert the affirmative defense of late notice.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Pigott, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey and Garcia concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, order of Supreme Court, New York County, reinstated, and certified question answered in the negative, in a memorandum.