State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Bombace

5 A.D.3d 782, 773 N.Y.S.2d 575
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 29, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 782 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Bombace) 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 v. Bombace, 5 A.D.3d 782, 773 N.Y.S.2d 575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), entered April 4, 2002, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Where, as here, an insured is required to provide notice of a claim as soon as practicable, such notice must be given within a reasonable time under all of the circumstances (see Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. v Brown, 300 AD2d 660 [2002]). Under the circumstances of this case, the appellant failed to file written notice of his uninsured motorist claim as soon as practicable as was required by his insurance policy (see Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. v Brown, supra; Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. v Callender, 288 AD2d 474 [2001]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Bernardine, 266 AD2d 543 [1999]). He also failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating due diligence or a reasonable excuse for the delay in ascertaining the alleged tortfeasor’s insurance status (see Matter of Continental Ins. Co. v Josephson, 280 AD2d 546, 547 [2001]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Bernardine, supra). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition to permanently stay arbitration of the claim for uninsured motorist benefits.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gilliard v. Progressive
96 A.D.3d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Gallagher
68 A.D.3d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance v. Vento
63 A.D.3d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Rapisarda
43 A.D.3d 1062 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Continental Insurance v. Marshall
12 A.D.3d 508 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Mears
7 A.D.3d 533 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.3d 782, 773 N.Y.S.2d 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-mutual-automobile-insurance-v-bombace-nyappdiv-2004.