Nationwide Insurance v. McDonnell

248 A.D.2d 476, 668 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2341
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 9, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 476 (Nationwide Insurance v. McDonnell) 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
Nationwide Insurance v. McDonnell, 248 A.D.2d 476, 668 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Kelli McDonnell appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated April 14, 1997, as granted the application of Nationwide Insurance Company to stay arbitration pending a hearing to determine whether there was physical contact between the vehicle of the deceased and the alleged hit-and-run vehicle.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the application is denied, and the proceeding to stay arbitration is dismissed.

On May 9, 1995, the appellant’s deceased, William McDonnell, served Nationwide Insurance Company (hereinafter Nationwide) with a demand for arbitration of an uninsured motorist benefits claim. After its investigation indicated that there had been no physical contact between the vehicle of the deceased claimant and the alleged hit-and-run vehicle, Nationwide denied the claim and, in March 1997 made an application to stay arbitration pending a judicial determination of the issue of physical contact.

Because the issue of physical contact with the uninsured vehicle relates to whether certain conditions of coverage have [477]*477been satisfied, Nationwide’s application to stay arbitration should have been brought within the 20-day limitation period set out in CPLR 7503 (c) (see, Matter of Steck [State Farm Ins. Co.], 89 NY2d 1082; Matter of CNA Ins. Co. v Carsley, 243 AD2d 474). The application was therefore untimely, and should have been denied.

Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Segal
2026 NY Slip Op 50401(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2026)
AIU Insurance v. Orellana
18 A.D.3d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Nationwide Insurance v. McDonnell
272 A.D.2d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Allstate Insurance v. Rosado
271 A.D.2d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
DelGaudio v. Aetna Insurance
262 A.D.2d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
CNA Insurance v. Rosa
253 A.D.2d 494 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 A.D.2d 476, 668 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nationwide-insurance-v-mcdonnell-nyappdiv-1998.