Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Sarno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Sarno

277 A.D.2d 454, 716 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12287

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 454 (Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Sarno) 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

Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Sarno, 277 A.D.2d 454, 716 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated November 16, 1999, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The relevant provision of the subject insurance policy required that the appellant give written notice of an underinsured motorist claim to the petitioner “as soon as practicable,” from the date she knew or should have known that the tortfeasor was underinsured (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Montopoli, 262 AD2d 647). Furthermore, the appellant was obligated to demonstrate that she acted with due diligence [455]*455in ascertaining the insurance status of the vehicles involved in the accident (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, supra; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Bernardine, 266 AD2d 543; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Montopoli, supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Adams, 259 AD2d 551).

There is no evidence that the appellant made any effort, other than tendering a complaint to one of the tortfeasor’s insurers, to acquire information regarding insurance coverage. Moreover, the appellant gave no excuse as to why she did not make such an effort. Accordingly, the appellant did not sustain her burden of demonstrating due diligence or a reasonable excuse for the delay in ascertaining the tortfeasor’s insurance status. Therefore, notice of the claim was not given as soon as practicable, and arbitration was properly stayed (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, supra; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Bernardine, supra; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Montopoli, supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Adams, supra). Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.H.O.), dated November 16, 1999, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The relevant provision of the subject insurance policy required that the appellant give written notice of an underinsured motorist claim to the petitioner “as soon as practicable,” from the date she knew or should have known that the tortfeasor was underinsured (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Montopoli, 262 AD2d 647). Furthermore, the appellant was obligated to demonstrate that she acted with due diligence [455]*455in ascertaining the insurance status of the vehicles involved in the accident (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, supra; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Bernardine, 266 AD2d 543; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Montopoli, supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Adams, 259 AD2d 551).

There is no evidence that the appellant made any effort, other than tendering a complaint to one of the tortfeasor’s insurers, to acquire information regarding insurance coverage. Moreover, the appellant gave no excuse as to why she did not make such an effort. Accordingly, the appellant did not sustain her burden of demonstrating due diligence or a reasonable excuse for the delay in ascertaining the tortfeasor’s insurance status. Therefore, notice of the claim was not given as soon as practicable, and arbitration was properly stayed (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, supra; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Bernardine, supra; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Montopoli, supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Adams, supra). Ritter, J. P., Altman, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 454, 716 N.Y.S.2d 707, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interboro-mutual-indemnity-insurance-v-sarno-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack