Mathieu v. Commercial Mutual Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mathieu v. Commercial Mutual Insurance

275 A.D.2d 613, 713 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9183

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 14, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered on or about December 28, 1998, which granted the motion and cross motion of defendants-respondents for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs challenge to the constitutionality of the marital exclusion set forth in Insurance Law § 3420 (g) is without merit (see, Yankelevitz v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 59 NY2d 928). Nor, given the plain import of Insurance Law § 3420 (g), do we perceive any basis for plaintiffs claim that it was the Legislature’s intention that coverage be provided for interspousal liability. Additionally, any claim against the original broker is [614] time-barred, and the broker that procured the current policy was under no duty to obtain such coverage (cf., Gorgone v Regency Agency, 238 AD2d 265). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered on or about December 28, 1998, which granted the motion and cross motion of defendants-respondents for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs challenge to the constitutionality of the marital exclusion set forth in Insurance Law § 3420 (g) is without merit (see, Yankelevitz v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 59 NY2d 928). Nor, given the plain import of Insurance Law § 3420 (g), do we perceive any basis for plaintiffs claim that it was the Legislature’s intention that coverage be provided for interspousal liability. Additionally, any claim against the original broker is [614] time-barred, and the broker that procured the current policy was under no duty to obtain such coverage (cf., Gorgone v Regency Agency, 238 AD2d 265). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Mathieu v. Commercial Mutual Insurance, 275 A.D.2d 613, 713 N.Y.S.2d 471, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

275 A.D.2d 613 (Mathieu v. Commercial Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related