In re the Arbitration between USAA Casualty Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration between USAA Casualty Insurance

178 A.D.2d 356

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 178 A.D.2d 356 (In re the Arbitration between USAA Casualty Insurance) 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 USAA Casualty Insurance, 178 A.D.2d 356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered November 14, 1990, which granted petitioner’s application to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner insurer seeks to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration demand by respondent, its insured, on the ground that the other vehicle involved in the accident is insured by respondent insurer. Respondent insurer claims that it can-celled its policy of insurance on the offending vehicle prior to the accident. At issue is whether respondent insurer’s notice of cancellation sufficiently comported with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) so as to make the cancellation effective.

We find that the notice was invalid because it failed to contain a statement, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) clearly and unequivocally advising its former insured that insurance must be maintained continuously throughout the registration period (see, Barile v Kavanaugh, 67 NY2d 392). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered November 14, 1990, which granted petitioner’s application to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner insurer seeks to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration demand by respondent, its insured, on the ground that the other vehicle involved in the accident is insured by respondent insurer. Respondent insurer claims that it can-celled its policy of insurance on the offending vehicle prior to the accident. At issue is whether respondent insurer’s notice of cancellation sufficiently comported with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) so as to make the cancellation effective.

We find that the notice was invalid because it failed to contain a statement, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) clearly and unequivocally advising its former insured that insurance must be maintained continuously throughout the registration period (see, Barile v Kavanaugh, 67 NY2d 392). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-usaa-casualty-insurance-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack