Integon National Insurance v. Montagna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Integon National Insurance v. Montagna

69 A.D.3d 626, 893 N.Y.2d 145

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

DecidedJanuary 5, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 626 (Integon National Insurance v. Montagna) 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

Integon National Insurance v. Montagna, 69 A.D.3d 626, 893 N.Y.2d 145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

After the petitioner, Integon National Insurance Company (hereinafter Integon) established, prima facie, that the respondents Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Liberty) and Diamond State Insurance Company (hereinafter Diamond) insured the vehicle that was involved in the subject accident, the burden shifted to Liberty and Diamond to establish a lack of coverage or a timely and valid disclaimer of coverage (see Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Gibson, 62 AD3d 804 [2009]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mazyck, 48 AD3d 580, 580-581 [2008]; Matter of Mercury Ins. Group v Ocana, 46 AD3d 561, 562 [2007]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Berger, 47 AD3d 708, 710 [2008]; Matter of Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co. v Galluzzo, 16 AD3d 692, 693 [2005]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Rodriguez, 15 AD3d 399, 400 [2005]; Eveready Ins. Co. v Blackett, 148 AD2d 413, 414 [1989]). Although Liberty came forward with rebuttal proof showing that its policy [627]*627did not cover the vehicle, Integon presented additional proof of insurance which overcame the rebuttal proof (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Yeglinski, 79 AD2d 1029, 1030 [1981]; Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. v Machado, 28 AD3d 569, 570-571 [2006]; see also Pierre v Providence Washington Ins. Co., 99 NY2d 222, 228-229 [2002]; 49 CFR 387.15). Accordingly, the petition to permanently stay arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim was properly granted (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mazyck, 48 AD3d at 580-581; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Berger, 47 AD3d at 711; Matter of Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co. v Galluzzo, 16 AD3d at 693; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Rodriguez, 15 AD3d at 400).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Rivera, J.R, Miller, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

After the petitioner, Integon National Insurance Company (hereinafter Integon) established, prima facie, that the respondents Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Liberty) and Diamond State Insurance Company (hereinafter Diamond) insured the vehicle that was involved in the subject accident, the burden shifted to Liberty and Diamond to establish a lack of coverage or a timely and valid disclaimer of coverage (see Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Gibson, 62 AD3d 804 [2009]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mazyck, 48 AD3d 580, 580-581 [2008]; Matter of Mercury Ins. Group v Ocana, 46 AD3d 561, 562 [2007]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Berger, 47 AD3d 708, 710 [2008]; Matter of Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co. v Galluzzo, 16 AD3d 692, 693 [2005]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Rodriguez, 15 AD3d 399, 400 [2005]; Eveready Ins. Co. v Blackett, 148 AD2d 413, 414 [1989]). Although Liberty came forward with rebuttal proof showing that its policy [627]*627did not cover the vehicle, Integon presented additional proof of insurance which overcame the rebuttal proof (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Yeglinski, 79 AD2d 1029, 1030 [1981]; Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. v Machado, 28 AD3d 569, 570-571 [2006]; see also Pierre v Providence Washington Ins. Co., 99 NY2d 222, 228-229 [2002]; 49 CFR 387.15). Accordingly, the petition to permanently stay arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim was properly granted (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mazyck, 48 AD3d at 580-581; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Berger, 47 AD3d at 711; Matter of Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co. v Galluzzo, 16 AD3d at 693; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Rodriguez, 15 AD3d at 400).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit. Rivera, J.R, Miller, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 626, 893 N.Y.2d 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/integon-national-insurance-v-montagna-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack