Court Opinion

ID: 9746982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:49:45.99794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:27.725171
License: Public Domain

Shangraw, C.J.,
Dissenting. In construing the phrase contained in plaintiff’s policy that notice of an occurrence shall be given “as soon as practicable”, this Court held in the case of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Giroux, 129 Vt. 155, 159, 274 A.2d 487 (1971), that such phrase means “with reasonable dispatch.” In United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Gable, 125 Vt. 519, 522, 220 A.2d 165, 167 (1966), it was held that “[T]here may be circumstances that will explain or excuse a delay in giving the notice required by a policy of insurance, and show it to be reasonably prompt.” The burden is cast on the insured to explain or excuse such delay.
The object of the clause requiring the insured to give written notice of any accident is to afford the insurer an early opportunity to make at least a preliminary investigation of all circumstances surrounding the incident. An investigation made long after an accident has occurred, as everyone knows, is done with great difficulty, and often times with little promise of success. More particularly in this case, in that the alleged accident occurred in the winter and the insurer was not notified or afforded an opportunity to investigate until early summer. Physical conditions had in the meantime materially changed which no doubt would hamper defense preparations.
As related in the opinion defendant called on the plaintiff January 7, 1969, in an angry and disturbed state of mind by reason of the fact that plaintiff had placed a wire across a snowmobile trail on his property. Defendant had apparently contacted the wire in the operation of his snowmobile in that he then confronted plaintiff with a piece of wire similar to the aluminum wire the plaintiff had admittedly placed across the trail. Defendant then threatened plaintiff with suit provided plaintiff continued to block the trail.
Within three days thereafter plaintiff was informed that the defendant was in a hospital by reason of injuries re*349ceived on January 7, 1969. About a month later plaintiff was further informed by a third person that defendant contemplated bringing suit against the plaintiff. At this point the danger signal had been hoisted and in plain view by the plaintiff. Had he acted as a reasonable and prudent man notice should have been given by him to his insurance carrier. The defendant brought suit May 14, 1969. Not until then did plaintiff inform his insurance company of the alleged accident.
It is admitted that plaintiff failed to notify the insurance carrier of the accident in question until after suit was brought —over four months after the occurrence took place. Plaintiff failed to act with reasonable dispatch. Under the facts as set forth in the majority opinion, it is my view that the trial court’s conclusionary finding No. 19 that “ [P] laintiff’s delay in giving notice to his insurer is an excusable delay” is without factual support.
I would reverse and enter judgment that the defendant, Vermont Mutual Fire Insurance Company, is not required to defend or indemnify the plaintiff, Paul Dumont, in the action entitled Bernard R. Knapp v. Paul Dumont, Lamoille County Court, Docket No. 3325.