Opinion ID: 774879
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Duty to Cooperate.

Text: 80 Count III of the amended complaint alleges that Stroh breached Conditions Q and R of the Policy by failing to provide National Union with financial information it requested in the course of its investigation of the disputed claim. Condition Q requires Stroh to cooperate with National Union in all matters relating to this insurance. Condition R gives National Union the right to examine and audit the Insured's business documents relating to the subject matter of this insurance. 81 The district court concluded (1) that National Union failed to raise a triable issue as to whether Stroh in fact breached these provisions; and (2) that National Union forfeited this defense to coverage by failing to cite it in its denial of the claim. See National Union II, 1999 WL 1267461, at -, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19801, at -. We agree with the former conclusion and therefore need not reach the latter. National Union first requested the financial information on November 21, 1997, more than fifteen months after it was notified of Stroh's claim. In response, on November 25, 1997, Stroh requested that National Union take a position on coverage 5 before requiring Stroh to undertake a time consuming and costly accounting exercise, noting that National Union had already conducted a fifteen-month investigation of the claim that included the review of hundreds of documents and numerous personal interviews. On December 16, 1997, National Union acknowledged that coverage is still at issue, but stated that the purpose of the accountant's investigation is to expedite the adjustment process should coverage be accepted (emphasis added) and again requested access to financial information. It is undisputed that Stroh's duty to cooperate ended on February 24, 1998, when National Union officially disclaimed coverage. 82 The district court correctly concluded that Stroh did not breach the cooperation clause. National Union alleges only that Stroh refused to compile and divulge information that was needed in the event that National Union accepted coverage. It did not accept coverage. Therefore, whether or not National Union had some abstract right to the information, it cannot complain that it was in any way prejudiced by Stroh's failure to provide it. Cf. Thrasher v. United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 168, 225 N.E.2d 503, 508, 278 N.Y.S.2d 793, 800 (1967) (holding that in the context of an automobile liability insurance, an assertion of the failure of an insured to cooperate cannot succeed unless the attitude of the insured, after his co-operation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).