Progressive Direct Insurance v. Trilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Progressive Direct Insurance v. Trilla

28 A.D.3d 375, 813 N.Y.S.2d 714

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

DecidedApril 25, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.D.3d 375 (Progressive Direct Insurance v. Trilla) 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 Direct Insurance v. Trilla, 28 A.D.3d 375, 813 N.Y.S.2d 714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered November 1, 2005, which denied the petition to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The documentary evidence supports the court’s determination that prior to the accident, additional respondent Universal Insurance Company had effectively cancelled the policy of additional respondent Muhammad, the driver of the other vehicle, for nonpayment of premium. Indeed, it is clear that Universal, a North Carolina company not licensed or authorized to do business in New York State, complied with the applicable insurance law (NC Gen Stat § 58-35-85) when it cancelled the policy in question. Petitioner was thus unable to establish that this accident did not involve an uninsured motorist. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered November 1, 2005, which denied the petition to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The documentary evidence supports the court’s determination that prior to the accident, additional respondent Universal Insurance Company had effectively cancelled the policy of additional respondent Muhammad, the driver of the other vehicle, for nonpayment of premium. Indeed, it is clear that Universal, a North Carolina company not licensed or authorized to do business in New York State, complied with the applicable insurance law (NC Gen Stat § 58-35-85) when it cancelled the policy in question. Petitioner was thus unable to establish that this accident did not involve an uninsured motorist. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 375, 813 N.Y.S.2d 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/progressive-direct-insurance-v-trilla-nyappdiv-2006.