Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Fullam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Fullam

203 A.D.2d 457, 610 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 457 (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Fullam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Fullam, 203 A.D.2d 457, 610 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim, Michael Fullam appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), entered February 7, 1992, which granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While any ambiguity concerning the kind of coverage that [458]*458was obtained must be interpreted in favor of the insured (see, e.g., Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Annunziato, 187 AD2d 429), the determination of the Supreme Court that the policy obtained by the appellant did not provide underinsured motorist coverage is the only reasonable interpretation of that policy and is amply supported by the record. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim, Michael Fullam appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), entered February 7, 1992, which granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

While any ambiguity concerning the kind of coverage that [458]*458was obtained must be interpreted in favor of the insured (see, e.g., Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Annunziato, 187 AD2d 429), the determination of the Supreme Court that the policy obtained by the appellant did not provide underinsured motorist coverage is the only reasonable interpretation of that policy and is amply supported by the record. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 457, 610 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aetna-casualty-surety-co-v-fullam-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack