Progressive Preferred Insurance v. Townsend

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Progressive Preferred Insurance v. Townsend

79 A.D.3d 893, 912 N.Y.S.2d 427

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 893 (Progressive Preferred Insurance v. Townsend) 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 Preferred Insurance v. Townsend, 79 A.D.3d 893, 912 N.Y.S.2d 427 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), dated April 21, 2010, which denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Once the petitioner disclaimed liability coverage of the subject vehicle under the livery use exclusion provision of the subject insurance policy, the vehicle was rendered an uninsured motor vehicle under the policy, as required by Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (1), and the respondent Karen Townsend was entitled to seek uninsured motorist benefits (see Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Saravia, 271 AD2d 534 [2000]; see generally Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. [Hogan], 82 NY2d 57 [1993]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, 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 permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), dated April 21, 2010, which denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Once the petitioner disclaimed liability coverage of the subject vehicle under the livery use exclusion provision of the subject insurance policy, the vehicle was rendered an uninsured motor vehicle under the policy, as required by Insurance Law § 3420 (f) (1), and the respondent Karen Townsend was entitled to seek uninsured motorist benefits (see Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Saravia, 271 AD2d 534 [2000]; see generally Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. [Hogan], 82 NY2d 57 [1993]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 893, 912 N.Y.S.2d 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/progressive-preferred-insurance-v-townsend-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack