Ohio Casualty Group v. Avellini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ohio Casualty Group v. Avellini

54 A.D.2d 632, 387 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14125

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 632 (Ohio Casualty Group v. Avellini) 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

Ohio Casualty Group v. Avellini, 54 A.D.2d 632, 387 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 17, 1976, granting petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration pending trial of the issue whether there was a contractual obligation to proceed to arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the stay of arbitration denied. Appellant shall recover of petitioner-respondent $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The petitioner insurance carrier, although licensed to do business in this State, claims that it does not write policies for residents of New York. It issued a policy of automobile liability insurance to the respondent in New Jersey. Thereafter, the respondent was injured in an accident, and, claiming benefits under the New York no-fault law, he demanded arbitration, which the petitioner moved to stay, asserting that the New Jersey policy would not cover a no-fault claim for an accident in New York and that, when the policy was issued, the respondent claimed that he was a New Jersey resident when, in fact, he lived in Brooklyn. In Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Amer. (37 NY2d 91), relied upon by the Special Term, the obligation to arbitrate arose out of the agreement of the parties and hence could not be broader than that agreement. Here the obligation to arbitrate is not found in the policy but is imposed upon that agreement by article XVIII of the Insurance Law, the Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act. It is. imposed not only upon New York policies but also upon policies written for nonresidents when their automobiles are operated in this State and the insurer is authorized to transact business here (Insurance Law, § 676). The article grants every claimant the option of submitting to arbitration "any dispute involving the insurer’s liability to pay first party benefits” (Insurance Law, § 675, subd 2). It is therefore broad enough to cover the threshold question presented here. (See Matter of Nassau Ins. Co. v McMorris, 53 AD2d 694; Matter of Nassau Ins. Co. v Ebin, 81 Mise 2d 168.) Concur&emdash;Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Birns, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered March 17, 1976, granting petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration pending trial of the issue whether there was a contractual obligation to proceed to arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the stay of arbitration denied. Appellant shall recover of petitioner-respondent $40 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The petitioner insurance carrier, although licensed to do business in this State, claims that it does not write policies for residents of New York. It issued a policy of automobile liability insurance to the respondent in New Jersey. Thereafter, the respondent was injured in an accident, and, claiming benefits under the New York no-fault law, he demanded arbitration, which the petitioner moved to stay, asserting that the New Jersey policy would not cover a no-fault claim for an accident in New York and that, when the policy was issued, the respondent claimed that he was a New Jersey resident when, in fact, he lived in Brooklyn. In Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Amer. (37 NY2d 91), relied upon by the Special Term, the obligation to arbitrate arose out of the agreement of the parties and hence could not be broader than that agreement. Here the obligation to arbitrate is not found in the policy but is imposed upon that agreement by article XVIII of the Insurance Law, the Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act. It is. imposed not only upon New York policies but also upon policies written for nonresidents when their automobiles are operated in this State and the insurer is authorized to transact business here (Insurance Law, § 676). The article grants every claimant the option of submitting to arbitration "any dispute involving the insurer’s liability to pay first party benefits” (Insurance Law, § 675, subd 2). It is therefore broad enough to cover the threshold question presented here. (See Matter of Nassau Ins. Co. v McMorris, 53 AD2d 694; Matter of Nassau Ins. Co. v Ebin, 81 Mise 2d 168.) Concur&emdash;Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Birns, Nunez and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 632, 387 N.Y.S.2d 571, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-casualty-group-v-avellini-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack