Sovie v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sovie v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.

127 A.D.2d 995, 513 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53421

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.2d 995 (Sovie v. Aetna Life & Casualty 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

Sovie v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 127 A.D.2d 995, 513 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied respondent’s application to stay arbitration. Claimants contend that distinct injuries and damages were sustained as a result of two successive automobile collisions. Since the driver of the second automobile that collided with theirs was uninsured, claimants are entitled to arbitration under the uninsured motorist indorsement of respondent’s policy of insurance issued to claimant Royal Johnson Sovie. Claimants seek only to arbitrate their claims for injuries and [996]*996damages sustained in the collision with the uninsured vehicle. They do not seek to "stack” the uninsured motorist coverage and the amount received by jury verdict against the insured driver whose vehicle was the first to collide with theirs (cf., Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Miller], 111 AD2d 438, lv dismissed 66 NY2d 604, 915; Sisson v Travelers Ins. Cos., 94 AD2d 953; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Basile, 48 AD2d 868). Accordingly, the court properly found that, since the necessary preconditions had been met, arbitration should proceed (see, Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Cochrane, 64 NY2d 796). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Tenney, J. — arbitration.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Special Term properly denied respondent’s application to stay arbitration. Claimants contend that distinct injuries and damages were sustained as a result of two successive automobile collisions. Since the driver of the second automobile that collided with theirs was uninsured, claimants are entitled to arbitration under the uninsured motorist indorsement of respondent’s policy of insurance issued to claimant Royal Johnson Sovie. Claimants seek only to arbitrate their claims for injuries and [996]*996damages sustained in the collision with the uninsured vehicle. They do not seek to "stack” the uninsured motorist coverage and the amount received by jury verdict against the insured driver whose vehicle was the first to collide with theirs (cf., Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Miller], 111 AD2d 438, lv dismissed 66 NY2d 604, 915; Sisson v Travelers Ins. Cos., 94 AD2d 953; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Basile, 48 AD2d 868). Accordingly, the court properly found that, since the necessary preconditions had been met, arbitration should proceed (see, Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Cochrane, 64 NY2d 796). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Tenney, J. — arbitration.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.2d 995, 513 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sovie-v-aetna-life-casualty-co-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack