Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance v. Villarrubia

119 A.D.2d 576, 500 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55503
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 7, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 576 (Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance v. Villarrubia) 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
Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance v. Villarrubia, 119 A.D.2d 576, 500 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55503 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to permanently stay the arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated April 15, 1985, which denied the application.

Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and petition granted.

The "declarations” page of the respondent’s automobile insurance policy indicates that she purchased "uninsured” motorist coverage with policy limits of $10,000 for the injury of one person in any one accident and $20,000 for the injury of more than one person in any one accident (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]). However, it is clear that the respondent failed to purchase "Supplementary Uninsured Motorist Insurance”, which was necessary for her to purchase in order to be covered in the event that she was in an accident with an [577]*577"underinsured” motorist (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [2]; Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v Cassidy, 127 Misc 2d 641; Gull v General Acc. Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 121 Misc 2d 721). In other words, in order to be covered against "underinsured” motorists, an insured must purchase optional "Supplementary Uninsured Motorist Insurance” (see, Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v Cassidy, supra). Since the “declarations” page of the policy fails to indicate that the respondent purchased that type of insurance, the petition should have been granted. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Annunziato
187 A.D.2d 429 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Alberto
186 A.D.2d 658 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Morse
152 Misc. 2d 482 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
Guerra v. Fernandez
149 Misc. 2d 25 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)
Royal Insurance of America v. Vinciguerra
167 A.D.2d 873 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hopkins
142 A.D.2d 946 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Morris v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Inc.
662 F. Supp. 1489 (S.D. New York, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 A.D.2d 576, 500 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-property-liability-insurance-v-villarrubia-nyappdiv-1986.