State Farm Insurance v. Vanblarcom

226 A.D.2d 732, 641 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4609
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 29, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 732 (State Farm Insurance v. Vanblarcom) 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
State Farm Insurance v. Vanblarcom, 226 A.D.2d 732, 641 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Allstate Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Fredman, J.), dated May 10, 1995, which, after a hearing, permanently stayed arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

On February 22,1995, a hearing was conducted to determine [733]*733whether the offending vehicle was insured on February 18, 1993, the date of the accident. At the hearing, the petitioner offered into evidence a police report identifying the offending vehicle as having been insured by the appellant on the date of the accident and a Department of Motor Vehicles Registration Plate Record which indicated that the registration on the offending vehicle was renewed on July 21, 1992, and again on July 18,1994. This evidence made out a prima facie showing of coverage (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Karadag, 205 AD2d 531).

The appellant’s underwriter testified that the appellant cancelled the policy of the owner of the offending vehicle on December 8, 1991, and that a search which she conducted of the appellant’s records failed to reveal that the appellant thereafter ever reinstated its insured’s policy or issued another policy to her.

Under these circumstances, we conclude that the appellant’s evidence was insufficient to overcome the petitioner’s showing that the offending vehicle was insured on the day of the accident (cf., Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Karadag, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mercury Insurance Group v. Ocana
46 A.D.3d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Guerrier
307 A.D.2d 1033 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Alston
307 A.D.2d 319 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
CGU Ins. v. Greatheart
301 A.D.2d 649 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Interboro Mutual Indemnity Insurance v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.
251 A.D.2d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 A.D.2d 732, 641 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-insurance-v-vanblarcom-nyappdiv-1996.