Country Wide Insurance v. Dumawal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Country Wide Insurance v. Dumawal

200 A.D.2d 353, 606 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 25

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 353 (Country Wide Insurance v. Dumawal) 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

Country Wide Insurance v. Dumawal, 200 A.D.2d 353, 606 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 25 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered September 11, 1992, denying a petition for permanent stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the petition is granted, without costs.

Respondent purchased a policy of automobile insurance from petitioner with liability limits of $100,000/300,000 for bodily injury, $25,000 property damage, and $10,000/20,000 uninsured motorist coverage. After an accident with another vehicle that was minimally insured, respondent settled with that vehicle’s insurer for the $10,000 limit of that policy, and then served a demand upon petitioner for arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim in the amount of $100,000.

Uninsured motorist coverage (i.e., for bodily injury or death caused by an uninsured vehicle) is mandatory in this State (Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]), whereas additional underinsured motorist coverage (referred to in the statute as "supple[354]*354mentary uninsured motorists insurance for bodily injury”) is available only "at the option of the insured” (§ 3420 [f] [2]). Where the insured fails to purchase such optional insurance, the coverage is not available (Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Annunziato, 187 AD2d 429). The declaration page of respondent’s policy indicates the statutory minimum uninsured motorist coverage ($10,000/20,000), with no indication of a supplementary endorsement for additional underinsured motorist coverage. That omission is conclusive (Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Alberto, 186 AD2d 658), except where proof is adduced that the insured paid for such additional coverage, or that it was mistakenly omitted from the policy (Matter of Empire Ins. Co. v Vitucci, 192 AD2d 484). This record is devoid of any such evidence. The petition for permanent stay of arbitration should have been granted. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered September 11, 1992, denying a petition for permanent stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the petition is granted, without costs.

Respondent purchased a policy of automobile insurance from petitioner with liability limits of $100,000/300,000 for bodily injury, $25,000 property damage, and $10,000/20,000 uninsured motorist coverage. After an accident with another vehicle that was minimally insured, respondent settled with that vehicle’s insurer for the $10,000 limit of that policy, and then served a demand upon petitioner for arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim in the amount of $100,000.

Uninsured motorist coverage (i.e., for bodily injury or death caused by an uninsured vehicle) is mandatory in this State (Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]), whereas additional underinsured motorist coverage (referred to in the statute as "supple[354]*354mentary uninsured motorists insurance for bodily injury”) is available only "at the option of the insured” (§ 3420 [f] [2]). Where the insured fails to purchase such optional insurance, the coverage is not available (Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Annunziato, 187 AD2d 429). The declaration page of respondent’s policy indicates the statutory minimum uninsured motorist coverage ($10,000/20,000), with no indication of a supplementary endorsement for additional underinsured motorist coverage. That omission is conclusive (Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Alberto, 186 AD2d 658), except where proof is adduced that the insured paid for such additional coverage, or that it was mistakenly omitted from the policy (Matter of Empire Ins. Co. v Vitucci, 192 AD2d 484). This record is devoid of any such evidence. The petition for permanent stay of arbitration should have been granted. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 353, 606 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/country-wide-insurance-v-dumawal-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack