Eveready Insurance v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eveready Insurance v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.

201 A.D.2d 649, 608 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1390

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 649 (Eveready Insurance v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.) 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

Eveready Insurance v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co., 201 A.D.2d 649, 608 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay intercompany loss arbitration pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105 (b), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), entered January 15, 1992, which directed arbitration as to the validity of an arbitrator’s award dated March 18, 1991.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration is granted, and the prior arbitration award dated March 18, 1991, shall remain in full force and effect.

In 1985, following arbitration pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105 (b), an arbitrator determined that the respondent, a Workers’ Compensation carrier, had sustained its burden of proof on the issue of liability with regard to its claim against the petitioner, a no-fault carrier, and awarded it approximately $1,100 in damages. Thereafter, the respondent claimed additional damages based on its alleged payment of additional benefits to its insured. Following a hearing on the application, which was held on March 18, 1991, the arbitrator found that the respondent failed to sustain its burden of proof. The respondent thereafter made an ex parte application to Arbitration Forums, Inc., which provided the arbitrator, asking it to set aside the arbitrator’s determination. Arbitration Forums, Inc., granted the application, finding that the arbitrator had improperly reconsidered the issue of liability, which had previously been determined.

We conclude that Arbitration Forums, Inc., lacked the authority to vacate the award. A determination as to the validity of an arbitration award lies wholly within the power of the Supreme Court (see, Matter of Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 63 AD2d 981). Moreover, the [650]*650record provides no support for the position that the arbitrator was unaware of the previous determination as to liability and that the ruling applied to the issue of liability, as opposed to damages.

Under the circumstances, there is no need for an additional hearing. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to stay intercompany loss arbitration pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105 (b), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), entered January 15, 1992, which directed arbitration as to the validity of an arbitrator’s award dated March 18, 1991.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration is granted, and the prior arbitration award dated March 18, 1991, shall remain in full force and effect.

In 1985, following arbitration pursuant to Insurance Law § 5105 (b), an arbitrator determined that the respondent, a Workers’ Compensation carrier, had sustained its burden of proof on the issue of liability with regard to its claim against the petitioner, a no-fault carrier, and awarded it approximately $1,100 in damages. Thereafter, the respondent claimed additional damages based on its alleged payment of additional benefits to its insured. Following a hearing on the application, which was held on March 18, 1991, the arbitrator found that the respondent failed to sustain its burden of proof. The respondent thereafter made an ex parte application to Arbitration Forums, Inc., which provided the arbitrator, asking it to set aside the arbitrator’s determination. Arbitration Forums, Inc., granted the application, finding that the arbitrator had improperly reconsidered the issue of liability, which had previously been determined.

We conclude that Arbitration Forums, Inc., lacked the authority to vacate the award. A determination as to the validity of an arbitration award lies wholly within the power of the Supreme Court (see, Matter of Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v Country-Wide Ins. Co., 63 AD2d 981). Moreover, the [650]*650record provides no support for the position that the arbitrator was unaware of the previous determination as to liability and that the ruling applied to the issue of liability, as opposed to damages.

Under the circumstances, there is no need for an additional hearing. Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 649, 608 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eveready-insurance-v-lumbermans-mutual-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack