In re the Arbitration between Hanover Insurance & Louis

119 A.D.2d 529, 501 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55462
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 29, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 529 (In re the Arbitration between Hanover Insurance & Louis) 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 Hanover Insurance & Louis, 119 A.D.2d 529, 501 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinions

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shorter, J.), entered February 27, 1985, denying petitioner-appellant’s application to stay arbitration, reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the application granted.

Respondent was injured when his car collided with one driven by Brown, whose insurer paid the policy limits of $10,000 on respondent’s bodily injury claim. Alleging that his injuries exceed that amount, respondent, who has a $10,000 bodily injury limit policy with petitioner on his own car, has sought arbitration of his claim under his own policy’s supplementary underinsured motorist indorsement.

Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (1) mandates insurance coverage for damages caused by an uninsured motor vehicle. The following paragraph, (f) (2), authorizes an optional plan whereby car owners may supplement their uninsured motorists coverage by insuring against damages caused by vehicles carrying insurance that is lesser in bodily injury limits than their own insurance. Respondent elected this option. In his policy it is called underinsured motorists coverage. In its applicability, it tracks the wording of paragraph (f) (2). Since Brown and respondent’s policies have the same bodily injuries limits, Brown cannot be deemed either an underinsured motorist in respondent’s policy or one who would trigger coverage under paragraph (f) (2). Hence there is no arbitrable claim. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Asch and Lynch, JJ.

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

Related

Hartford Insurance v. Halt
223 A.D.2d 204 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Harrington v. Amiga Mutual Insurance
223 A.D.2d 222 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
In re the Arbitration between Commercial Union Insurance & Raymond
172 A.D.2d 988 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Automobile Insurance v. Stillway
165 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Balaran
163 A.D.2d 314 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Tetteris v. Travelers Insurance
146 Misc. 2d 140 (New York Supreme Court, 1989)
Gullo v. Hartford Insurance
145 Misc. 2d 330 (New York Supreme Court, 1989)
Eagle Insurance v. Silva
147 A.D.2d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Drapak v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
137 Misc. 2d 156 (New York Supreme Court, 1987)
Venigalla v. Penn Mutual Insurance
130 A.D.2d 974 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 A.D.2d 529, 501 N.Y.S.2d 347, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-hanover-insurance-louis-nyappdiv-1986.