Allstate Insurance v. Lopez

266 A.D.2d 209, 697 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11116
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 1, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 209 (Allstate Insurance v. Lopez) 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. Lopez, 266 A.D.2d 209, 697 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Schmidt, J.), entered November 30, 1998, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the petition to permanently stay arbitration of the respondent’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits. “Consistent with New York public policy to protect innocent victims of traffic accidents * * * personal protection insurance liability coverage underwritten in a sister State by insurers authorized to do business in New York is [210]*210required to conform to New York minimum financial requirements and, if not, is deemed to do so” (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Ramos], 234 AD2d 41, 42; see, Insurance Law § 5107 [a]; 11 NYCRR 65.5). Thus, although the respondent waived uninsured motorist coverage when the appellant issued the subject policy to her in Pennsylvania, that policy “must be construed to contain uninsured motorist benefits” (Matter of Midwest Mut. Ins. Co. v Pisani, 250 AD2d 512, 513).

Additionally, the Supreme Court correctly denied the appellant’s request for a hearing on the issue of whether the offending vehicle was insured on the date of the collision. The appellant’s unsubstantiated conjecture that there may have been some defect in the cancellation of the policy covering the offending vehicle did not warrant a hearing on the issue (see, Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Battershield, 225 AD2d 545). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Dairyland Insurance v. Figueroa
48 A.D.3d 462 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
American International Insurance v. Dibua
13 A.D.3d 365 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. v. Makerevich
289 A.D.2d 330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 A.D.2d 209, 697 N.Y.S.2d 684, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-v-lopez-nyappdiv-1999.