Eagle Insurance v. Beauvil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eagle Insurance v. Beauvil

297 A.D.2d 736, 747 N.Y.2d 774, 747 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8658

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 297 A.D.2d 736 (Eagle Insurance v. Beauvil) 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

Eagle Insurance v. Beauvil, 297 A.D.2d 736, 747 N.Y.2d 774, 747 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[737]*737The petitioner established a prima facie case as to the existence of insurance coverage for the subject vehicle by producing the police accident report which contained the offending vehicle’s insurance code (see Matter of Centennial Ins. Co. v Capehart, 220 AD2d 499; Matter of Wausau Ins. Co. v Ramos, 151 AD2d 487). The appellant, the offending vehicle’s alleged carrier, submitted a letter stating in conclusory fashion that it did not insure the offending vehicle. This was insufficient to overcome the petitioner’s prima facie case (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Sadiq, 237 AD2d 605). The Supreme Court, therefore, properly permanently stayed uninsured motorist arbitration. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

[737]*737The petitioner established a prima facie case as to the existence of insurance coverage for the subject vehicle by producing the police accident report which contained the offending vehicle’s insurance code (see Matter of Centennial Ins. Co. v Capehart, 220 AD2d 499; Matter of Wausau Ins. Co. v Ramos, 151 AD2d 487). The appellant, the offending vehicle’s alleged carrier, submitted a letter stating in conclusory fashion that it did not insure the offending vehicle. This was insufficient to overcome the petitioner’s prima facie case (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Sadiq, 237 AD2d 605). The Supreme Court, therefore, properly permanently stayed uninsured motorist arbitration. Altman, J.P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 736, 747 N.Y.2d 774, 747 N.Y.S.2d 774, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eagle-insurance-v-beauvil-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack