Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. American Country Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. American Country Insurance

126 A.D.3d 657, 4 N.Y.S.3d 487, 2015 NY Slip Op 02714, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2719

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

DecidedMarch 31, 2015

Docket14691N 452014/12

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 657 (Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. American Country 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

Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. v. American Country Insurance, 126 A.D.3d 657, 4 N.Y.S.3d 487, 2015 NY Slip Op 02714, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2719 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 14, 2014, which, upon granting reargument, vacated the amended order, same court and Justice, entered June 6, 2013, confirming an arbitration award in favor of petitioner and denying respondent’s cross petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award, and granted the cross petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent made a prima facie showing that the offending vehicle in this no-fault arbitration was insured by Global Liberty Insurance of New York, by submitting a Department of Motor Vehicles expansion, indicating that Global had insured *658 the vehicle subsequent to respondent’s coverage (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Kapelevich, 307 AD2d 927 [2d Dept 2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 503 [2003]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Youngblood, 270 AD2d 493 [2d Dept 2000]). By operation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a), the subsequent coverage terminated respondent’s coverage of the same vehicle as of the effective date and hour of Global’s coverage, irrespective of whether respondent had otherwise complied with the cancellation requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 45 NY2d 608, 611 [1978]). Thus, it was arbitrary and capricious for the arbitrator to find that respondent was the insurer of the vehicle at the time of the accident because it failed to demonstrate that it had properly cancelled its policy. The arbitration award was also in excess of the arbitrator’s authority, where it awarded coverage when none existed (cf. Countrywide Ins. Co. v Sawh, 272 AD2d 245 [1st Dept 2000]; Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v Credle, 228 AD2d 191 [1st Dept 1996]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered February 14, 2014, which, upon granting reargument, vacated the amended order, same court and Justice, entered June 6, 2013, confirming an arbitration award in favor of petitioner and denying respondent’s cross petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award, and granted the cross petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent made a prima facie showing that the offending vehicle in this no-fault arbitration was insured by Global Liberty Insurance of New York, by submitting a Department of Motor Vehicles expansion, indicating that Global had insured *658 the vehicle subsequent to respondent’s coverage (see Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Kapelevich, 307 AD2d 927 [2d Dept 2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 503 [2003]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Youngblood, 270 AD2d 493 [2d Dept 2000]). By operation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a), the subsequent coverage terminated respondent’s coverage of the same vehicle as of the effective date and hour of Global’s coverage, irrespective of whether respondent had otherwise complied with the cancellation requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co. of N.Y. v Firemen’s Fund Ins. Co., 45 NY2d 608, 611 [1978]). Thus, it was arbitrary and capricious for the arbitrator to find that respondent was the insurer of the vehicle at the time of the accident because it failed to demonstrate that it had properly cancelled its policy. The arbitration award was also in excess of the arbitrator’s authority, where it awarded coverage when none existed (cf. Countrywide Ins. Co. v Sawh, 272 AD2d 245 [1st Dept 2000]; Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v Credle, 228 AD2d 191 [1st Dept 1996]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 657, 4 N.Y.S.3d 487, 2015 NY Slip Op 02714, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2719, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/motor-vehicle-accident-indemnification-corp-v-american-country-insurance-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack