Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Gamble

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Gamble

250 A.D.2d 540, 671 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5945

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 540 (Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Gamble) 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. Gamble, 250 A.D.2d 540, 671 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank Lewis, Spec. Ref.), entered on or about June 17, 1997, which granted petitioner insurer’s application to permanently stay arbitration of respondent insured’s uninsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Special Referee correctly held that additional respondent-appellant insurer failed to show that it properly canceled its policy with the owner of the offending vehicle, where its witness had no first-hand knowledge of its having actually mailed either the final bill or a notice of cancellation to the owner of the offending vehicle, or of its regular procedures in mailing such bills and notices (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Ramirez, 208 AD2d 828, 830, citing, inter alia, Federal Ins. Co. v Kimbrough, 116 AD2d 692; Matter of Paramount Ins. Co. v Moctezuma, 201 AD2d 652). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frank Lewis, Spec. Ref.), entered on or about June 17, 1997, which granted petitioner insurer’s application to permanently stay arbitration of respondent insured’s uninsured motorist claim, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The Special Referee correctly held that additional respondent-appellant insurer failed to show that it properly canceled its policy with the owner of the offending vehicle, where its witness had no first-hand knowledge of its having actually mailed either the final bill or a notice of cancellation to the owner of the offending vehicle, or of its regular procedures in mailing such bills and notices (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Ramirez, 208 AD2d 828, 830, citing, inter alia, Federal Ins. Co. v Kimbrough, 116 AD2d 692; Matter of Paramount Ins. Co. v Moctezuma, 201 AD2d 652). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 540, 671 N.Y.S.2d 979, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lumbermens-mutual-casualty-co-v-gamble-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack