Farley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
This text of 167 A.D.2d 861 (Farley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile 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.
Opinion
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Because plaintiffs have demonstrated that the damages might well [862]*862reach into the excess coverage, a declaratory judgment action is the appropriate vehicle to determine whether coverage exists under the State Farm policy (see, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v LiMauro, 103 AD2d 514, 518, affd 65 NY2d 369; Hollander v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 60 AD2d 380, 383, lv denied 44 NY2d 646; Post v Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co., 227 App Div 156, affd 254 NY 541). Plaintiffs, as the injured parties, have standing to commence this action (see, Reliance Ins. Co. v Garsart Bldg. Corp., 122 AD2d 128, 131; Curreri v Allstate Ins. Co., 37 Misc 2d 557). Moreover, although plaintiffs initially neglected to join Pamela Lautner as a defendant, Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ request to add her as a party defendant (see, CPLR 1001 [a]) so the case is now in the proper posture. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.—summary judgment.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
167 A.D.2d 861, 561 N.Y.S.2d 962, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farley-v-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-nyappdiv-1990.