Allstate Insurance v. Sala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Allstate Insurance v. Sala

226 A.D.2d 172, 640 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3645

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

DecidedApril 9, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 172 (Allstate Insurance v. Sala) 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. Sala, 226 A.D.2d 172, 640 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3645 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Harry Seidell, J.), entered on or about January 24,1995, which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration of respondent’s underinsurance claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly rejected petitioner’s argument that respondent failed to comply with the policy’s underinsured coverage notice provisions. Respondent notified petitioner of the accident immediately after it happened, pursuant to a request for first-party benefits, but could not at that or any other time prior to the the jury’s verdict in the personal injury action she had brought, know that the school district and school bus driver, who were insured for $1 million, would be absolved of all liability for the accident, leaving her with only the $25,000 policy of the automobile driver, and thus a viable claim for the underinsurance benefits of her own policy (Insurance Law § 3420 [fj [2]; see, Matter of Federal Ins. Co. v Watnick, 80 NY2d 539, 546). Under such circumstances, it was the announcement of the jury’s verdict in the personal injury action that marked the commencement of respondent’s obligation to give written notice of claim within 90 days after the accident "or as soon as practicable”. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Harry Seidell, J.), entered on or about January 24,1995, which, inter alia, denied petitioner’s application to stay arbitration of respondent’s underinsurance claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly rejected petitioner’s argument that respondent failed to comply with the policy’s underinsured coverage notice provisions. Respondent notified petitioner of the accident immediately after it happened, pursuant to a request for first-party benefits, but could not at that or any other time prior to the the jury’s verdict in the personal injury action she had brought, know that the school district and school bus driver, who were insured for $1 million, would be absolved of all liability for the accident, leaving her with only the $25,000 policy of the automobile driver, and thus a viable claim for the underinsurance benefits of her own policy (Insurance Law § 3420 [fj [2]; see, Matter of Federal Ins. Co. v Watnick, 80 NY2d 539, 546). Under such circumstances, it was the announcement of the jury’s verdict in the personal injury action that marked the commencement of respondent’s obligation to give written notice of claim within 90 days after the accident "or as soon as practicable”. We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 172, 640 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allstate-insurance-v-sala-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack