Hartford Insurance v. Gamiel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hartford Insurance v. Gamiel

34 A.D.3d 244, 824 N.Y.S.2d 237

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 244 (Hartford Insurance v. Gamiel) 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

Hartford Insurance v. Gamiel, 34 A.D.3d 244, 824 N.Y.S.2d 237 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered August 5, 2005, which granted the petition to permanently stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s notice of her claim for supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) benefits under the SUM coverage she purchased (see Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [2]), provided to petitioner insurer at least 16 months after respondent’s receipt of notice that the tortfeasor’s insurer was insolvent and in liquidation was not provided “as soon as practicable,” as required by the policy, and was untimely as a matter of law (see Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 NY3d 742, 743 [2005]; Rekemeyer v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 468, 474 [2005]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered August 5, 2005, which granted the petition to permanently stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s notice of her claim for supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists (SUM) benefits under the SUM coverage she purchased (see Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [2]), provided to petitioner insurer at least 16 months after respondent’s receipt of notice that the tortfeasor’s insurer was insolvent and in liquidation was not provided “as soon as practicable,” as required by the policy, and was untimely as a matter of law (see Great Canal Realty Corp. v Seneca Ins. Co., Inc., 5 NY3d 742, 743 [2005]; Rekemeyer v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 4 NY3d 468, 474 [2005]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 244, 824 N.Y.S.2d 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-insurance-v-gamiel-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack