Hereford Ins. Co. v. Iconic Wellness Surgical Servs., LLC

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hereford Ins. Co. v. Iconic Wellness Surgical Servs., LLC

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 23, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 50801(U)

StatusPublished

This text of Hereford Ins. Co. v. Iconic Wellness Surgical Servs., LLC (Hereford Ins. Co. v. Iconic Wellness Surgical Servs., LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hereford Ins. Co. v. Iconic Wellness Surgical Servs., LLC, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

Hereford Insurance Company, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Iconic Wellness Surgical Services, LLC, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2018, which granted the petition of Hereford Insurance Company to vacate a master arbitrator's award.

Per Curiam.

Order (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2018, reversed, with $10 costs, petition denied and the award of the master arbitrator is reinstated.

Civil Court erred in vacating the master arbitrator's no-fault award on the ground that it is contrary to a subsequent order rendered by the Supreme Court, New York County, which declared that petitioner-insurer is not liable for no-fault benefits arising from the underlying automobile accident. While the preclusive effect of a pre-arbitration judicial decision may be sufficient to vacate an arbitral award (see Matter of Tokio Mar. & Fire Ins. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 492 [2004]), a post-arbitration judicial determination concerning the insurer's liability is not one of the limited grounds for vacating an arbitration award (see Matter of Hirsch Constr. Corp. [Cooper], 181 AD2d 52 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 701 [1992]). Indeed, if a motion to vacate an arbitration award on this ground could be entertained, "the arbitration award would be the beginning rather than the end of the controversy and the protracted litigation which arbitration is meant to avoid would be invited" (Matter of Mole [Queen Ins. Co. of Am.], 14 AD2d 1, 3 [1961]).

We have considered petitioner Hereford's alternative grounds for vacating the award and find them unavailing. The master arbitrator's affirmance of the lower arbitration award was not irrational (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]), nor did it ignore controlling law (see Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v ISurply, LLC, 163 AD3d 418 [2018]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: May 23, 2019

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

Hereford Insurance Company, Petitioner-Respondent,

against

Iconic Wellness Surgical Services, LLC, Respondent-Appellant.

Respondent appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2018, which granted the petition of Hereford Insurance Company to vacate a master arbitrator's award.

Per Curiam.

Order (Louis L. Nock, J.), entered on or about November 21, 2018, reversed, with $10 costs, petition denied and the award of the master arbitrator is reinstated.

Civil Court erred in vacating the master arbitrator's no-fault award on the ground that it is contrary to a subsequent order rendered by the Supreme Court, New York County, which declared that petitioner-insurer is not liable for no-fault benefits arising from the underlying automobile accident. While the preclusive effect of a pre-arbitration judicial decision may be sufficient to vacate an arbitral award (see Matter of Tokio Mar. & Fire Ins. Co. v Allstate Ins. Co., 8 AD3d 492 [2004]), a post-arbitration judicial determination concerning the insurer's liability is not one of the limited grounds for vacating an arbitration award (see Matter of Hirsch Constr. Corp. [Cooper], 181 AD2d 52 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 701 [1992]). Indeed, if a motion to vacate an arbitration award on this ground could be entertained, "the arbitration award would be the beginning rather than the end of the controversy and the protracted litigation which arbitration is meant to avoid would be invited" (Matter of Mole [Queen Ins. Co. of Am.], 14 AD2d 1, 3 [1961]).

We have considered petitioner Hereford's alternative grounds for vacating the award and find them unavailing. The master arbitrator's affirmance of the lower arbitration award was not irrational (see Matter of Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 NY2d 207, 211 [1981]), nor did it ignore controlling law (see Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. v ISurply, LLC, 163 AD3d 418 [2018]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: May 23, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hereford Ins. Co. v. Iconic Wellness Surgical Servs., LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hereford-ins-co-v-iconic-wellness-surgical-servs-llc-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack