In re the Arbitration between O'Neill & Patriot General Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between O'Neill & Patriot General Insurance

202 A.D.2d 178, 610 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1757

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 1, 1994·Published

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert Roberto, J.), entered on or about January 7, 1992, which confirmed an arbitration award denying petitioner’s claim for uninsured/ underinsured motorist benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A finding that petitioner did not sustain a "serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), or, if he did, that he did not show a causal connection between his alleged injuries and the automobile accident in question, and therefore is not entitled to damages under his uninsured motorist endorsement (Matter of Commercial Union Ins. Co. v Ewall, 168 AD2d 247, 249), would not be lacking a rational basis, assuming, in petitioner’s favor, that the arbitration was a compulsory one.

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert Roberto, J.), entered on or about January 7, 1992, which confirmed an arbitration award denying petitioner’s claim for uninsured/ underinsured motorist benefits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A finding that petitioner did not sustain a "serious injury” as defined by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), or, if he did, that he did not show a causal connection between his alleged injuries and the automobile accident in question, and therefore is not entitled to damages under his uninsured motorist endorsement (Matter of Commercial Union Ins. Co. v Ewall, 168 AD2d 247, 249), would not be lacking a rational basis, assuming, in petitioner’s favor, that the arbitration was a compulsory one.

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

In re the Arbitration between O'Neill & Patriot General Insurance, 202 A.D.2d 178, 610 N.Y.S.2d 765, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

202 A.D.2d 178 (In re the Arbitration between O'Neill & Patriot General Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related