Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Dursi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Dursi

206 A.D.2d 484, 615 N.Y.S.2d 998

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

DecidedJuly 18, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 484 (Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Dursi) 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

Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Dursi, 206 A.D.2d 484, 615 N.Y.S.2d 998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim, Angela Dursi appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated November 27, 1992, which granted the petitioner’s application to stay arbitration.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the petitioner’s application to stay arbitration. The appellant was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under the petitioner’s excess policy. The terms of the petitioner’s supplementary uninsured motorist endorsement provides that the appellant’s primary underinsurance coverage would be deducted from the maximum amount he could recover under the petitioner’s excess policy (see, Berger v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 177 AD2d 280; see also, Matter of Valente v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 77 NY2d 894). Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim, Angela Dursi appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Luciano, J.), dated November 27, 1992, which granted the petitioner’s application to stay arbitration.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the petitioner’s application to stay arbitration. The appellant was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits under the petitioner’s excess policy. The terms of the petitioner’s supplementary uninsured motorist endorsement provides that the appellant’s primary underinsurance coverage would be deducted from the maximum amount he could recover under the petitioner’s excess policy (see, Berger v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 177 AD2d 280; see also, Matter of Valente v Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 77 NY2d 894). Rosenblatt, J. P., Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 484, 615 N.Y.S.2d 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/progressive-casualty-insurance-v-dursi-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack