Allstate Insurance v. Henry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allstate Insurance v. Henry

214 A.D.2d 668, 625 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4252

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

DecidedApril 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 668 (Allstate Insurance v. Henry) 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

Allstate Insurance v. Henry, 214 A.D.2d 668, 625 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4252 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated February 7, 1994, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the respondent Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Prudential) properly disclaimed coverage of its insured, the owner of the offending vehicle. Prudential gave the insured written notice of its disclaimer as soon as was reasonably possible, and the written disclaimer contained the required specificity. Moreover, Prudential established that the insured’s lack of cooperation, including the insured’s willful obstruction of its investigation, was the basis for its disclaimer (see generally, General Acc. Ins. Co. Group v Cirrucci, 46 NY2d 862; Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028; Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, 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 stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.), dated February 7, 1994, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the respondent Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Prudential) properly disclaimed coverage of its insured, the owner of the offending vehicle. Prudential gave the insured written notice of its disclaimer as soon as was reasonably possible, and the written disclaimer contained the required specificity. Moreover, Prudential established that the insured’s lack of cooperation, including the insured’s willful obstruction of its investigation, was the basis for its disclaimer (see generally, General Acc. Ins. Co. Group v Cirrucci, 46 NY2d 862; Hartford Ins. Co. v County of Nassau, 46 NY2d 1028; Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 668, 625 N.Y.S.2d 931, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-v-henry-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack