In re the Arbitration between Matarasso & Continental Casualty Co.

82 A.D.2d 861, 440 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14550
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 15, 1981
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 82 A.D.2d 861 (In re the Arbitration between Matarasso & Continental Casualty 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 Matarasso & Continental Casualty Co., 82 A.D.2d 861, 440 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14550 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

In a proceeding by Continental Casualty Company to stay arbitration, the claimants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.), entered January 13, 1981, which granted the petition “in the exercise of discretion”. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The claimants were injured in an automobile accident and recovered the maximum [862]*862benefits allowable under their primary automobile liability insurance policy’s uninsured motorist indorsement (see Insurance Law, § 167, subd 2-a). They sought to recover their excess damages under a “Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy” issued by the respondent insurer. The umbrella policy protected Daniel Matarasso and his business against claims by third parties in excess of the total applicable limits of liability of the underlying general, automobile and employers’ liability policies. The umbrella policy did not include an uninsured motorist indorsement or supplementary uninsured motorist coverage (see Insurance Law, § 167, subd 2-a). The umbrella policy incorporated by reference provisions of the underlying policies with respect to liability coverage. The claimants demanded arbitration based on their contention that an uninsured motorist indorsement containing an arbitration clause was either incorporated by reference in the umbrella policy from the underlying automobile liability policy or was mandated by law (see Insurance Law, § 167, subd 2-a). The insurer then brought the instant proceeding to stay arbitration, concededly more than 20 days after service of the demand to arbitrate (see CPLR 7503, subd [c]). The main issue on this appeal is whether the uninsured motorist indorsement is applicable to the umbrella policy. We hold that in this case it is not. The umbrella policy clearly provides excess protection for claimant Daniel Matarasso and his business against liability from third-party claims. It incorporates the underlying policies insofar as they provide for protection against liability for damages to third parties. The uninsured motorist coverage provided by the underlying automobile liability policy does not involve claims of liability against the insured from third parties and is not incorporated by the umbrella policy. Any other interpretation would distort the actual purpose of the umbrella policy (cf. Sperling v Great Amer. Ind. Co., 7 NY2d 442). Further, the Insurance Law does not mandate inclusion of the uninsured motorist indorsement in this umbrella policy. Subdivision 2-a of section 167 requires such an indorsement in every automobile liability policy issued “upon any motor vehicle * * * in this state”. The umbrella policy at bar is not an automobile liability policy issued “upon any motor vehicle * * * in this state”, but is a “Commercial Umbrella Liability Policy” purchased to provide excess liability coverage for a variety of possible claims and issued upon three underlying liability policies. The claimants received the protection of subdivision 2-a of section 167 through their primary underlying automobile liability insurance policy and have not been left without any relief. Having determined that the uninsured motorist indorsement, and its concomitant arbitration clause, do not apply to the umbrella policy at bar, the arbitration must be stayed. No arbitration agreement exists between the claimants and the insurer, and it is clear that a nonparty cannot be held to an arbitration agreement because he failed to seek a stay of arbitration within the statutory time limits (see CPLR 7503, subd [c]; Glasser v Price, 35 AD2d 98; see, also, McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 7503:11, p 365). Finally, we do not reach the issue of whether the insurer may be estopped from denying coverage as that question is not properly before us. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Haering v. Topa Insurance
244 Cal. App. 4th 725 (California Court of Appeal, 2016)
BOBAK, ADAM, MTR. OF
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Blake v. Thornton
914 N.E.2d 1102 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2009)
Pielhau v. RLI Insurance
2008 NMCA 099 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2008)
United National Insurance v. DePrizio
705 N.E.2d 455 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1999)
Martusus v. Tartamosa
696 A.2d 1 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1997)
Kromer v. Reliance Insurance
677 A.2d 1224 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1996)
Sidelnik v. American States Insurance Co.
914 S.W.2d 689 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1996)
Doto v. Russo
659 A.2d 1371 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1995)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Driscoll
213 A.D.2d 646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Reddy v. New Hampshire Insurance
612 A.2d 64 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1992)
Mass v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
610 A.2d 1185 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1992)
Curran v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
610 A.2d 1198 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1992)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. McLaughlin
590 N.E.2d 679 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1992)
Reddy v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., No. 357446 (Dec. 7, 1990)
1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4480 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1990)
Rowe v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
800 P.2d 157 (Montana Supreme Court, 1990)
Stiefel v. Bayly, Martin and Fay
577 A.2d 1303 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.2d 861, 440 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-matarasso-continental-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1981.