In re the Arbitration Between Utica Mutual Insurance & Leno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Arbitration Between Utica Mutual Insurance & Leno

214 A.D.2d 980, 626 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6715

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

DecidedApril 28, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 980 (In re the Arbitration Between Utica Mutual Insurance & Leno) 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 Utica Mutual Insurance & Leno, 214 A.D.2d 980, 626 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the petition for a stay of arbitration of respondent’s claim on behalf of Edward and April Leno for uninsured motorists coverage under the commercial umbrella liability policy issued by petitioner to Business Services Company of Utica. That policy contains no provision for the arbitration of disputes and affords no uninsured motorists coverage. Rather, it affords excess and extended liability coverage to insureds for damages owing to third parties. Moreover, contrary to the conclusion reached by the court, the commercial umbrella liability policy’s incorporation of the "same terms, conditions, agreements, exclusions and definitions as the 'underlying insurance’ except with respec[t] to any provision to the contrary contained in this insurance”, did not extend to the provisions for uninsured motorists coverage contained in the underlying insurance policy (see, Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], 56 NY2d 264, 268). Thus, there was no provision in petitioner’s policy to support the conclusion of the court that respondent’s claim was subject to arbitration.

Furthermore, the alternative grounds urged by respondent to support denial of a stay of arbitration lack merit. The application for the stay was timely (see, CPLR 7503 [c]), and there is no support in the record for respondent’s assertion that the existence of the commercial umbrella liability policy was concealed by petitioner. In any event, where, as here, there is no agreement to arbitrate, the insurance carrier is not barred by its failure to move to stay arbitration within the required 20-day statutory period (see, Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], supra, at 266; Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.] 213 AD2d 1051). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—Stay Arbitration.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the petition for a stay of arbitration of respondent’s claim on behalf of Edward and April Leno for uninsured motorists coverage under the commercial umbrella liability policy issued by petitioner to Business Services Company of Utica. That policy contains no provision for the arbitration of disputes and affords no uninsured motorists coverage. Rather, it affords excess and extended liability coverage to insureds for damages owing to third parties. Moreover, contrary to the conclusion reached by the court, the commercial umbrella liability policy’s incorporation of the "same terms, conditions, agreements, exclusions and definitions as the 'underlying insurance’ except with respec[t] to any provision to the contrary contained in this insurance”, did not extend to the provisions for uninsured motorists coverage contained in the underlying insurance policy (see, Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], 56 NY2d 264, 268). Thus, there was no provision in petitioner’s policy to support the conclusion of the court that respondent’s claim was subject to arbitration.

Furthermore, the alternative grounds urged by respondent to support denial of a stay of arbitration lack merit. The application for the stay was timely (see, CPLR 7503 [c]), and there is no support in the record for respondent’s assertion that the existence of the commercial umbrella liability policy was concealed by petitioner. In any event, where, as here, there is no agreement to arbitrate, the insurance carrier is not barred by its failure to move to stay arbitration within the required 20-day statutory period (see, Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], supra, at 266; Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.] 213 AD2d 1051). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—Stay Arbitration.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 980, 626 N.Y.S.2d 914, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-arbitration-between-utica-mutual-insurance-leno-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack