Arnold v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arnold v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

238 A.D.2d 415, 657 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3798

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

DecidedApril 14, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 415 (Arnold v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance) 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

Arnold v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, 238 A.D.2d 415, 657 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to modify an arbitration award, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered October 18, 1995, as granted the petition to modify the arbitration award and, in effect, denied the branch of its motion which was to vacate the arbitration award.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the appellant’s motion which is to vacate the arbitration award is granted, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The offset provision contained in the subject insurance policy is valid and enforceable because the policy contains a single, [416]*416combined, limit of uninsurance /underinsurance covered by one premium and a combined endorsement for uninsurance and underinsurance (see, Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Ohrablo, 236 AD2d 541; see also, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz— N. J. Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. [Winn], 215 AD2d 958). Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the motion of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company which was to vacate the arbitrator’s award of underinsurance benefits to the petitioner since the $50,000 limit of underinsurance benefits contained in her policy was completely offset by the $50,000 she received in settlement from the insurance company of the negligent tortfeasor (see, Matter of Milici [Allstate Ins. Co.], 69 AD2d 821; CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]).

The remainder of the parties’ assertions either lack merit (see, Matter of Macy & Co. [National Sleep Prods.], 39 NY2d 268; Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Carleton, 145 AD2d 492) or are academic in light of the above determination. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7511 to modify an arbitration award, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered October 18, 1995, as granted the petition to modify the arbitration award and, in effect, denied the branch of its motion which was to vacate the arbitration award.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the appellant’s motion which is to vacate the arbitration award is granted, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The offset provision contained in the subject insurance policy is valid and enforceable because the policy contains a single, [416]*416combined, limit of uninsurance /underinsurance covered by one premium and a combined endorsement for uninsurance and underinsurance (see, Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Ohrablo, 236 AD2d 541; see also, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz— N. J. Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 NY2d 219; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. [Winn], 215 AD2d 958). Accordingly, the court should have granted that branch of the motion of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company which was to vacate the arbitrator’s award of underinsurance benefits to the petitioner since the $50,000 limit of underinsurance benefits contained in her policy was completely offset by the $50,000 she received in settlement from the insurance company of the negligent tortfeasor (see, Matter of Milici [Allstate Ins. Co.], 69 AD2d 821; CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]).

The remainder of the parties’ assertions either lack merit (see, Matter of Macy & Co. [National Sleep Prods.], 39 NY2d 268; Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Carleton, 145 AD2d 492) or are academic in light of the above determination. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 415, 657 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-nationwide-mutual-insurance-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack