In re the Arbitration between Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

205 A.D.2d 831, 615 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5829

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

DecidedJune 2, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 831 (In re the Arbitration between Aetna Casualty & Surety 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

In re the Arbitration between Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 205 A.D.2d 831, 615 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Conway, J.), entered March 11, 1993 in Albany County, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties.

Supreme Court granted petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration, holding that respondent was contractually barred under her insurance policy with petitioner from recovering underinsured motorist coverage. The court also ruled that the issues of whether petitioner was correct in declining coverage and paying damages based on respondent’s failure to inform petitioner and obtain the latter’s consent prior to any settlement were not a basis for arbitration under the insurance policy. We find no merit to respondent’s contention that any dispute over the amount of damages was arbitrable and, accordingly, affirm the court’s order. Respondent’s remaining arguments have been reviewed and rejected as unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Casey, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Conway, J.), entered March 11, 1993 in Albany County, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties.

Supreme Court granted petitioner’s application for a stay of arbitration, holding that respondent was contractually barred under her insurance policy with petitioner from recovering underinsured motorist coverage. The court also ruled that the issues of whether petitioner was correct in declining coverage and paying damages based on respondent’s failure to inform petitioner and obtain the latter’s consent prior to any settlement were not a basis for arbitration under the insurance policy. We find no merit to respondent’s contention that any dispute over the amount of damages was arbitrable and, accordingly, affirm the court’s order. Respondent’s remaining arguments have been reviewed and rejected as unpersuasive.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Casey, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 831, 615 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-aetna-casualty-surety-co-nyappdiv-1994.