In re the Arbitration between State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies & Proper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies & Proper

300 A.D.2d 1095, 751 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13007

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 1095 (In re the Arbitration between State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies & Proper) 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 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies & Proper, 300 A.D.2d 1095, 751 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Lane, J.), entered February 5, 2002, which granted the petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of respondent’s claim for supplemental uninsured motorist benefits.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of respondent’s claim for supplemental uninsured motorist (SUM) benefits. Respondent was injured in an automobile accident on September 29, 1999 but did not provide petitioner with notice of her SUM claim until September 14, 2001. The insurance policy issued to respondent by petitioner required her to give notice of a SUM claim “as soon as practicable,” i.e., “with reasonable promptness after [she] knew or should reasonably have known that the tortfeasor was underinsured” (Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487, 495). Respondent [1096]*1096failed to meet her burden of establishing a reasonable excuse for her nearly two-year delay in giving notice (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Earl], 284 AD2d 1002, 1004; Unwin v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 268 AD2d 669, 670-671). “The nature and extent of respondent’s injury did not change from the time of the accident until the time when respondent provided petitioner with notice of the SUM claim” (Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Moore], 280 AD2d 923, 924; see Unwin, 268 AD2d at 671). Respondent also failed to demonstrate that she exercised due diligence in ascertaining the tortfeasor’s policy limits (see Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v DiGregorio, 294 AD2d 579, 580-581; Matter of Interboro Mut. Indent. Ins. Co. v Sarno, 277 AD2d 454, 455). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Lane, J.), entered February 5, 2002, which granted the petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of respondent’s claim for supplemental uninsured motorist benefits.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of respondent’s claim for supplemental uninsured motorist (SUM) benefits. Respondent was injured in an automobile accident on September 29, 1999 but did not provide petitioner with notice of her SUM claim until September 14, 2001. The insurance policy issued to respondent by petitioner required her to give notice of a SUM claim “as soon as practicable,” i.e., “with reasonable promptness after [she] knew or should reasonably have known that the tortfeasor was underinsured” (Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487, 495). Respondent [1096]*1096failed to meet her burden of establishing a reasonable excuse for her nearly two-year delay in giving notice (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Earl], 284 AD2d 1002, 1004; Unwin v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 268 AD2d 669, 670-671). “The nature and extent of respondent’s injury did not change from the time of the accident until the time when respondent provided petitioner with notice of the SUM claim” (Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Moore], 280 AD2d 923, 924; see Unwin, 268 AD2d at 671). Respondent also failed to demonstrate that she exercised due diligence in ascertaining the tortfeasor’s policy limits (see Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v DiGregorio, 294 AD2d 579, 580-581; Matter of Interboro Mut. Indent. Ins. Co. v Sarno, 277 AD2d 454, 455). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 1095, 751 N.Y.S.2d 810, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack