New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Gonzalez

34 A.D.3d 816, 825 N.Y.S.2d 132
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 28, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 816 (New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Gonzalez) 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
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Gonzalez, 34 A.D.3d 816, 825 N.Y.S.2d 132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In a proceeding, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated April 18, 2005, which granted that branch of the petition which was to permanently stay the arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellants’ failure to complete and return a sworn “Notice of Intention to Make Claim” form, which their insurer promptly provided to the appellants’ attorney on September 9, 2004, after receiving the attorney’s letter dated September 2, 2004, constituted a breach of a condition of coverage under the policy’s supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists endorsement, providing a basis for disclaimer or denial of coverage (see Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Aguirre, 7 NY3d 772 [2006]). The insurer’s commencement of the instant proceeding on October 5, 2004, following receipt of the appellants’ notice of intention to arbitrate on September 16, 2004, constituted timely, sufficient denial of coverage and disclaimer “as soon as reasonably possible” (Insurance Law § 3420 [d]; see Matter of American Cas. Ins. Co. v Silverman, 271 AD2d 528 [2000]; cf. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Aguirre, supra), which was 26 days after the “Notice of Intention to Make Claim” form was mailed to the appellants’ attorney.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch [817]*817of the petition which was to permanently stay the uninsured motorist arbitration.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.E, Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ, concur.

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

Related

RLI INSURANCE COMPANY v. SMIEDALA, LESLIE
96 A.D.3d 1409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Routes v. State Farm Insurance
59 A.D.3d 514 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Tubis
38 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.D.3d 816, 825 N.Y.S.2d 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-central-mutual-fire-insurance-v-gonzalez-nyappdiv-2006.