Rabideau v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rabideau v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

54 A.D.2d 1055, 388 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15022

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

DecidedNovember 24, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 1055 (Rabideau v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.) 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

Rabideau v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 54 A.D.2d 1055, 388 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15022 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 24, 1976 in Franklin County, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that respondent was entitled to refuse to pay plaintiff any uninsured motorist benefits unless they were first offset by any first party benefits (no-fault insurance) previously received by her. The First Department has held in Matter of Adams (Government Employees Ins. Co.) (52 AD2d 118) that the insurer is not entitled to the offset here afforded it. We concur with this position and the rationale of the Adams decision. Plaintiff is entitled to an award under the uninsured motorists clause for pain and suffering, and any other items of loss not compensated for by no-fault coverage, "the award not to exceed in toto $10,000.” Only in the event that that award duplicates benefits provided by defendant under the no-fault provision in the subject policy is defendant entitled to reduce the uninsured motorists’ award by the sum of no-fault benefits. Accordingly, the order granting summary judgment to defendant should be reversed and summary judgment should be granted plaintiff to the extent heretofore indicated. Order reversed, on the law, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted, with costs. Mahoney, J. P., Main, Larkin, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered February 24, 1976 in Franklin County, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on the ground that respondent was entitled to refuse to pay plaintiff any uninsured motorist benefits unless they were first offset by any first party benefits (no-fault insurance) previously received by her. The First Department has held in Matter of Adams (Government Employees Ins. Co.) (52 AD2d 118) that the insurer is not entitled to the offset here afforded it. We concur with this position and the rationale of the Adams decision. Plaintiff is entitled to an award under the uninsured motorists clause for pain and suffering, and any other items of loss not compensated for by no-fault coverage, "the award not to exceed in toto $10,000.” Only in the event that that award duplicates benefits provided by defendant under the no-fault provision in the subject policy is defendant entitled to reduce the uninsured motorists’ award by the sum of no-fault benefits. Accordingly, the order granting summary judgment to defendant should be reversed and summary judgment should be granted plaintiff to the extent heretofore indicated. Order reversed, on the law, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted, with costs. Mahoney, J. P., Main, Larkin, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 1055, 388 N.Y.S.2d 719, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15022, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabideau-v-aetna-casualty-surety-co-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack