Lodal, Inc. v. Home Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lodal, Inc. v. Home Insurance

309 A.D.2d 634, 766 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10900

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 634 (Lodal, Inc. v. Home Insurance) 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

Lodal, Inc. v. Home Insurance, 309 A.D.2d 634, 766 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 22, 2003, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) to permanently stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“Under the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel, a party is barred from relitigating in a state action a claim or issue that is identical to that litigated and resolved in a prior federal action” (73A NY Jur 2d, Judgments § 428, at 193). Petitioner contends that respondent “lost,” i.e., waived or abandoned, its claim for reimbursement by failing to “counterclaim” for that relief in the federal declaratory judgment action. However, the District Court explicitly held that the insurer “preserved [its] right to arbitration by asserting it in [its] first responsive pleading” (Lodal v Home Ins. Co. of Ill., US Dist Ct, WD Mich, N Dist, Quist, J., 2:94-CV-343, affd 156 F3d 1230 [1998]). Although petitioner objected to the magistrate’s finding that the insurer had not waived its rights under the policy with regard to arbitration, petitioner apparently did not specifically assert that the insurer had waived its right to seek reimbursement through arbitration by failing to set forth a “counterclaim.” Since this related matter “might have been litigated therein, but [was] not” (73A NY Jur 2d, Judgments § 430, at 199), petitioner is precluded from raising it now.

Petitioner also contends that the insurer “waive[d] or abandon[ed]” arbitration by choosing to “litigate” in the declaratory judgment action instead of choosing the arbitration [635]*635path at that time. However, it was petitioner that commenced the Michigan state action, later removed to federal court; the insurer did not choose the “litigation” path. Moreover, petitioner cannot point to any actions on the part of the insurer that would reflect an unequivocal intention to waive arbitration rights under the policy.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contention and find it unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered January 22, 2003, which dismissed the petition brought pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) to permanently stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“Under the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel, a party is barred from relitigating in a state action a claim or issue that is identical to that litigated and resolved in a prior federal action” (73A NY Jur 2d, Judgments § 428, at 193). Petitioner contends that respondent “lost,” i.e., waived or abandoned, its claim for reimbursement by failing to “counterclaim” for that relief in the federal declaratory judgment action. However, the District Court explicitly held that the insurer “preserved [its] right to arbitration by asserting it in [its] first responsive pleading” (Lodal v Home Ins. Co. of Ill., US Dist Ct, WD Mich, N Dist, Quist, J., 2:94-CV-343, affd 156 F3d 1230 [1998]). Although petitioner objected to the magistrate’s finding that the insurer had not waived its rights under the policy with regard to arbitration, petitioner apparently did not specifically assert that the insurer had waived its right to seek reimbursement through arbitration by failing to set forth a “counterclaim.” Since this related matter “might have been litigated therein, but [was] not” (73A NY Jur 2d, Judgments § 430, at 199), petitioner is precluded from raising it now.

Petitioner also contends that the insurer “waive[d] or abandon[ed]” arbitration by choosing to “litigate” in the declaratory judgment action instead of choosing the arbitration [635]*635path at that time. However, it was petitioner that commenced the Michigan state action, later removed to federal court; the insurer did not choose the “litigation” path. Moreover, petitioner cannot point to any actions on the part of the insurer that would reflect an unequivocal intention to waive arbitration rights under the policy.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contention and find it unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 634, 766 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lodal-inc-v-home-insurance-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack