Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Lene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Lene

208 A.D.2d 539, 617 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9361

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 539 (Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Lene) 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

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Lene, 208 A.D.2d 539, 617 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 for a permanent stay of arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated February 19, 1993, which granted the petition.

[540]*540Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant, who was involved in an accident while driving a vehicle owned by the insured, contends that the insured’s assigned risk livery policy was in effect at the time of the accident. He asserts that the insurance carrier’s purported cancellation was invalid because it failed to give notification to the insured of the right to appeal pursuant to the New York Automobile Insurance Plan § 19 (hereinafter the Plan). He further claims that this notice was required because the insurance carrier cancelled the policy pursuant to Plan § 18 (2) (1) which permits cancellation on the ground that the insured "is not or ceases to be eligible”. We disagree and affirm.

The insurance carrier’s decision to opt out of the Plan during the restructuring transition period and to cancel the policy pursuant to Plan § 24 (L) (1) rendered the provisions of sections 18 and 19 inapplicable. Therefore, the insurance carrier was not required to provide notice of the right to appeal pursuant to Plan § 19. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, 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 for a permanent stay of arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated February 19, 1993, which granted the petition.

[540]*540Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant, who was involved in an accident while driving a vehicle owned by the insured, contends that the insured’s assigned risk livery policy was in effect at the time of the accident. He asserts that the insurance carrier’s purported cancellation was invalid because it failed to give notification to the insured of the right to appeal pursuant to the New York Automobile Insurance Plan § 19 (hereinafter the Plan). He further claims that this notice was required because the insurance carrier cancelled the policy pursuant to Plan § 18 (2) (1) which permits cancellation on the ground that the insured "is not or ceases to be eligible”. We disagree and affirm.

The insurance carrier’s decision to opt out of the Plan during the restructuring transition period and to cancel the policy pursuant to Plan § 24 (L) (1) rendered the provisions of sections 18 and 19 inapplicable. Therefore, the insurance carrier was not required to provide notice of the right to appeal pursuant to Plan § 19. Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 539, 617 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-mutual-insurance-v-lene-nyappdiv-1994.