Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Campbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Campbell

227 A.D.2d 628, 643 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6098

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 28, 1996·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered April 21, 1995, which denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its application for a permanent stay of the uninsured motorist arbitration, the petitioner submitted a document which indicated that the insurance coverage, which had been issued to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle by Eagle Insurance Company had, in fact, been terminated approximately four weeks before the accident on February 27, 1994. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioner was not entitled to a stay of arbitration as the petitioner failed to meet its initial burden of showing that the offending vehicle was, in fact, insured on the date of the accident (see, Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Battershield, 225 AD2d 545; Matter of State-Wide Ins. Co. v Morales, 204 AD2d 336; Matter of Insurance Co. v Castillo, 158 AD2d 691). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Hart and McGinity, 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 an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered April 21, 1995, which denied the petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In support of its application for a permanent stay of the uninsured motorist arbitration, the petitioner submitted a document which indicated that the insurance coverage, which had been issued to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle by Eagle Insurance Company had, in fact, been terminated approximately four weeks before the accident on February 27, 1994. Under these circumstances, we agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioner was not entitled to a stay of arbitration as the petitioner failed to meet its initial burden of showing that the offending vehicle was, in fact, insured on the date of the accident (see, Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Battershield, 225 AD2d 545; Matter of State-Wide Ins. Co. v Morales, 204 AD2d 336; Matter of Insurance Co. v Castillo, 158 AD2d 691). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Hart and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Campbell, 227 A.D.2d 628, 643 N.Y.S.2d 197, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

227 A.D.2d 628 (Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Campbell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related