In re the Arbitration between General Accident Insurance & Ramee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between General Accident Insurance & Ramee

157 A.D.2d 877, 549 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 877 (In re the Arbitration between General Accident Insurance & Ramee) 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 General Accident Insurance & Ramee, 157 A.D.2d 877, 549 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered December 8, 1988 in Albany County, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties.

Respondent Jane E. Ramee was injured in a collision between a motor vehicle driven by her husband, respondent George W. Ramee, and a vehicle owned and operated by Katherine Ryle. Respondents settled their claim against Ryle for $10,000, the liability limit of Ryle’s auto insurance policy, and gave a general release in exchange. Respondents then asserted a claim against petitioner, their own auto insurance carrier, under their "underinsured motorist” endorsement. Petitioner refused payment of the claim, asserting that respondents were not entitled to recover because they prejudiced petitioner by settling their claim against Ryle without reserving petitioner’s subrogation rights (see, Weinberg v Transamerica Ins. Co., 62 NY2d 379). Respondents served a demand for arbitration and petitioner in turn brought this application to stay arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503. Supreme Court denied the application. Petitioner appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we agree with Supreme Court that petitioner’s application was untimely (see, CPLR 7503 [c]). Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, respondents served a demand for arbitration on June 22, 1988. The fact that respondents made a request, ultimately rejected, that the arbitration be conducted by the American Arbitration Association did not render the demand a nullity. Accordingly, petitioner’s applica-

[878]*878tion for a stay of arbitration, made on August 15, 1988, was properly denied (see, Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Miller], 95 AD2d 961). Moreover,, were we to address the merits, the result would be no different. The subject endorsement specifically provides for arbitration of the issue of whether a covered person is entitled to recover damages under it. Therefore, the merit of respondents’ claim is to be determined by the arbitrators and not by the courts (see, Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. [Hildalgo], 133 AD2d 87, 88).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

—Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered December 8, 1988 in Albany County, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties.

Respondent Jane E. Ramee was injured in a collision between a motor vehicle driven by her husband, respondent George W. Ramee, and a vehicle owned and operated by Katherine Ryle. Respondents settled their claim against Ryle for $10,000, the liability limit of Ryle’s auto insurance policy, and gave a general release in exchange. Respondents then asserted a claim against petitioner, their own auto insurance carrier, under their "underinsured motorist” endorsement. Petitioner refused payment of the claim, asserting that respondents were not entitled to recover because they prejudiced petitioner by settling their claim against Ryle without reserving petitioner’s subrogation rights (see, Weinberg v Transamerica Ins. Co., 62 NY2d 379). Respondents served a demand for arbitration and petitioner in turn brought this application to stay arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503. Supreme Court denied the application. Petitioner appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we agree with Supreme Court that petitioner’s application was untimely (see, CPLR 7503 [c]). Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, respondents served a demand for arbitration on June 22, 1988. The fact that respondents made a request, ultimately rejected, that the arbitration be conducted by the American Arbitration Association did not render the demand a nullity. Accordingly, petitioner’s applica-

[878]*878tion for a stay of arbitration, made on August 15, 1988, was properly denied (see, Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Miller], 95 AD2d 961). Moreover,, were we to address the merits, the result would be no different. The subject endorsement specifically provides for arbitration of the issue of whether a covered person is entitled to recover damages under it. Therefore, the merit of respondents’ claim is to be determined by the arbitrators and not by the courts (see, Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. [Hildalgo], 133 AD2d 87, 88).

Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Mikoll, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 877, 549 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-general-accident-insurance-ramee-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack