Serrano v. Progressive Insurance Companies

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Serrano v. Progressive Insurance Companies

123 A.D.3d 1000, 997 N.Y.S.2d 328

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

DecidedDecember 24, 2014

Docket2013-05872

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 1000 (Serrano v. Progressive Insurance Companies) 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

Serrano v. Progressive Insurance Companies, 123 A.D.3d 1000, 997 N.Y.S.2d 328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated April 15, 2013, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint is granted.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, alleging that they had submitted a valid claim for uninsured motorist benefits to the defendants, and the defendants had refused to pay the claim. The Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs’ causes of action were subject to mandatory arbitration. Pursuant to the terms of the subject insurance policy, arbitration of a dispute with respect to the amount owing under either the uninsured motorist coverage provision or the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provision was mandatory (see Williams v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 41 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2007]; Mahmood v Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co., 303 AD2d 385, 385 [2003]).

Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Battaglia, J.), dated April 15, 2013, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint is granted.

The plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for breach of an insurance contract, alleging that they had submitted a valid claim for uninsured motorist benefits to the defendants, and the defendants had refused to pay the claim. The Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs’ causes of action were subject to mandatory arbitration. Pursuant to the terms of the subject insurance policy, arbitration of a dispute with respect to the amount owing under either the uninsured motorist coverage provision or the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage provision was mandatory (see Williams v Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co., 41 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2007]; Mahmood v Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co., 303 AD2d 385, 385 [2003]).

Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 1000, 997 N.Y.S.2d 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serrano-v-progressive-insurance-companies-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack