Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Cermak

187 A.D.2d 513, 590 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12698
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 9, 1992·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding to stay the arbitration of an automo[514] bile insurance claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated November 28, 1990, which denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the misrepresentation made by the respondent Janet J. LoGatto, also known as Janet J. LoGatto Cermak, as to her true address does not render the automobile insurance policy void ab initio. The law is well settled that cancellation of an automobile insurance policy may be prospective only, even if the application is deceptive or fraudulent (see, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v O’Connor, 8 NY2d 359; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v McClellan, 127 AD2d 767; Middlesex Ins. Co. v Carrero, 103 AD2d 694; Teeter v Allstate Ins. Co., 9 AD2d 176, affd 9 NY2d 655; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 [1] [a]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to stay arbitration of the respondents’ claim. Thompson, J. P., Harwood, Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Cermak, 187 A.D.2d 513, 590 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

187 A.D.2d 513 (Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Cermak) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anderson v. Baker
2 A.D.3d 376 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Eagle Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
267 A.D.2d 347 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)