Lotito v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance

228 A.D.2d 443, 643 N.Y.2d 227, 643 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6239
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 3, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 443 (Lotito v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty 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
Lotito v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance, 228 A.D.2d 443, 643 N.Y.2d 227, 643 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

The petitioner was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a vehicle insured by Eagle Insurance Company (hereinafter Eagle). The petitioner’s vehicle was insured under a policy issued by the respondent with a combined uninsured/ underinsured coverage limit of $10,000. The petitioner settled her claim against the tortfeasor for $10,000, representing the full amount available under the policy issued by Eagle.

The petitioner thereafter commenced the instant proceeding to compel arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim. The respondent moved to stay arbitration asserting that, under its policy, it was entitled to an offset of the amount already paid to the petitioner under the policy issued by Eagle and, since the petitioner had already reached her policy limit of $10,000, she could not recover additional monies.

The Supreme Court properly stayed arbitration. Since the policy at issue contains a single combined limit of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, the respondent is entitled to an offset of $10,000, which is the amount that the petitioner recovered from the tortfeasor (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz], 81 NY2d 219; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. [Winn], 215 AD2d 958; Matter of Zurich Ins. Co. v Wilburn, 212 AD2d 620; cf., Matter of United Community Ins. Co. v Mucatel, 69 NY2d 777; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Corizzo, 200 [444]*444AD2d 621). Since the petitioner has exhausted her policy limit, there is nothing to arbitrate. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Walker
84 A.D.3d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
In re the Arbitration between Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. & Hollingsworth
247 A.D.2d 921 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Nationwide Insurance v. Kuchta
238 A.D.2d 510 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Damaskinos
238 A.D.2d 511 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Nationwide Insurance v. Ohrablo
236 A.D.2d 541 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Travelers Insurance v. Holt
235 A.D.2d 428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
228 A.D.2d 443, 643 N.Y.2d 227, 643 N.Y.S.2d 227, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lotito-v-metropolitan-property-casualty-insurance-nyappdiv-1996.