Factory Mutual Insurance v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Factory Mutual Insurance v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc.

57 A.D.3d 304, 868 N.Y.2d 521

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 11, 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The court properly interpreted the arbitration clause with respect to the arbitrability of matters “not specifically covered” in the underlying agreement; the contrary interpretation proffered by the insurers would render the word “specifically” meaningless (see Beal Sav. Bank v Sommer, 8 NY3d 318, 324 [2007]). Mutual Marine’s interpretation was not precluded by its unsuccessful argument in another case (see Baje Realty Corp. v Cutler, 32 AD3d 307, 310 [2006]). Arbitration was not barred by the inclusion of a reformation claim (see Matter of SCM Corp. [Fisher Park Lane Co.], 40 NY2d 788, 792-793 [1976]), the timeliness of which was for the arbitrators to evaluate in the absence of an explicit provision that the issue is reserved for a court of law (see Matter of Diamond Waterproofing Sys., Inc. v 55 Liberty Owners Corp., 4 NY3d 247, 252-253 [2005]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not address appellants’ other contentions, which are, in any event, unavailing. Concur— Friedman, J.P., McGuire, Acosta, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

The court properly interpreted the arbitration clause with respect to the arbitrability of matters “not specifically covered” in the underlying agreement; the contrary interpretation proffered by the insurers would render the word “specifically” meaningless (see Beal Sav. Bank v Sommer, 8 NY3d 318, 324 [2007]). Mutual Marine’s interpretation was not precluded by its unsuccessful argument in another case (see Baje Realty Corp. v Cutler, 32 AD3d 307, 310 [2006]). Arbitration was not barred by the inclusion of a reformation claim (see Matter of SCM Corp. [Fisher Park Lane Co.], 40 NY2d 788, 792-793 [1976]), the timeliness of which was for the arbitrators to evaluate in the absence of an explicit provision that the issue is reserved for a court of law (see Matter of Diamond Waterproofing Sys., Inc. v 55 Liberty Owners Corp., 4 NY3d 247, 252-253 [2005]).

In view of the foregoing, we need not address appellants’ other contentions, which are, in any event, unavailing. Concur— Friedman, J.P., McGuire, Acosta, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

Factory Mutual Insurance v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 304, 868 N.Y.2d 521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

57 A.D.3d 304 (Factory Mutual Insurance v. Mutual Marine Office, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related