State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Waite

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Waite

68 A.D.3d 1006, 889 N.Y.2d 866

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

DecidedDecember 15, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 68 A.D.3d 1006 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Waite) 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 Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Waite, 68 A.D.3d 1006, 889 N.Y.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied its petition to permanently stay arbitration of the respondent’s underinsured motorist claim as time-barred by the 20-day statutory period set forth in CPLR 7503 (c) (see Matter of Fiveco, Inc. v Haber, 11 NY3d 140, 145 [2008]; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Argueta, 59 AD3d 446, 447 [2009]). The respondent came within the definition of an “insured” in the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists endorsement at issue, and the petition to stay arbitration was based upon an exclusion in that endorsement rather than a lack of coverage (see Matter of Worcester Ins. Co. v Bettenhauser, 95 NY2d 185, 189 [2000]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Doyle, 64 AD3d 775, 776 [1007]*1007[2009]; Matter of Nova Cas. Co. v Martin, 57 AD3d 548 [2008]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Arpaia, 276 AD2d 628 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied its petition to permanently stay arbitration of the respondent’s underinsured motorist claim as time-barred by the 20-day statutory period set forth in CPLR 7503 (c) (see Matter of Fiveco, Inc. v Haber, 11 NY3d 140, 145 [2008]; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Argueta, 59 AD3d 446, 447 [2009]). The respondent came within the definition of an “insured” in the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists endorsement at issue, and the petition to stay arbitration was based upon an exclusion in that endorsement rather than a lack of coverage (see Matter of Worcester Ins. Co. v Bettenhauser, 95 NY2d 185, 189 [2000]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Doyle, 64 AD3d 775, 776 [1007]*1007[2009]; Matter of Nova Cas. Co. v Martin, 57 AD3d 548 [2008]; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Arpaia, 276 AD2d 628 [2000]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.3d 1006, 889 N.Y.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-co-v-waite-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack