Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): insurer provides a notice of disclaimer ‘as soon as is reasonably possible after it first learns of the accident or of grounds for disclaimer of liability.’” Adams v. Perry’s Place, 168 A.D.2d 932, 564 N.Y.S.2d 1019 (4th Dep’t 1990) (internal citation omitted); see also Zappone v. Home Ins. Co., 55 N.Y.2d 131, 135-36, 447 N.Y.S.2d 911, 432 N.E.2d 783 (1982) (noting that Insurance Law § 3420(d) “was enacted to avoid prejudice to the insured, [and] the injured claimant ... [who] could be harmed by delay in learning of the carrier’s position” (internal citation omitted)). If an insurer breaches its duty to disclaim coverage in a timely manner, it may not rely upon exclusions to deny coverage. Worcester Ins. Co. v. Bettenhauser, 95 N.Y.2d 185, 189, 712 N.Y.S.2d 433, 734 N.E.2d 745 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Notably, however, an insurer has no duty to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage (B) holding that a denial of coverage based on a reasonable interpretation of the policy is not bad faith even if incorrect (C) holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy (D) holding that a disclaimer of liability is required when denial of coverage is based upon an exclusion set forth in a policy without which the claim would be covered citing zappone 55 ny2d at 134 138 447 nys2d 911 432 ne2d 783 (E) holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage
Output (English): holding named driver exclusion eliminating liability coverage as well as um coverage did not contravene um statute because statute required um coverage only if the claimant otherwise qualifies for liability coverage under the policy