Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bowles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bowles

78 A.D.2d 980, 433 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13746

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 980 (Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bowles) 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

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bowles, 78 A.D.2d 980, 433 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion for stay of arbitration granted. Memorandum: This case raises issues concerning the application of New York or Arizona insurance limits; whether the uninsured motorist endorsements of the policies permit double coverage; which insurer is primary and which is liable as an excess insurer; whether subdivision 8 of section 167 of the Insurance Law is only applicable to accidents within the State and, if not, whether the delay involved precludes the denial of coverage; and whether payments made properly have exhausted coverage. These are issues of law for the court to decide. The arbitration clause in the standard uninsured motorist endorsement, which the policies contained, does not cover all controversies between the insured and the insurer. Only the issues of fault and damages, if fault is established, are the subjects of arbitration (Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sur. Co. of N. Y.], 11 NY2d 310). Consequently, Special Term erred in denying petitioner’s application to stay arbitration. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court — arbitration.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with costs, and motion for stay of arbitration granted. Memorandum: This case raises issues concerning the application of New York or Arizona insurance limits; whether the uninsured motorist endorsements of the policies permit double coverage; which insurer is primary and which is liable as an excess insurer; whether subdivision 8 of section 167 of the Insurance Law is only applicable to accidents within the State and, if not, whether the delay involved precludes the denial of coverage; and whether payments made properly have exhausted coverage. These are issues of law for the court to decide. The arbitration clause in the standard uninsured motorist endorsement, which the policies contained, does not cover all controversies between the insured and the insurer. Only the issues of fault and damages, if fault is established, are the subjects of arbitration (Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sur. Co. of N. Y.], 11 NY2d 310). Consequently, Special Term erred in denying petitioner’s application to stay arbitration. (Appeal from order of Monroe Supreme Court — arbitration.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Callahan and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 980, 433 N.Y.S.2d 673, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumbermens-mutual-casualty-co-v-bowles-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack