State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hardina
Opinion
Prior to the demand for arbitration, respondent failed to [487] advise petitioner of the offer to settle the underlying action and to seek petitioner’s consent to settle. Respondent also has not shown that petitioner’s right of subrogation would be preserved under the settlement agreement. Therefore, she has not satisfied the conditions precedent to arbitration (cf., Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. [King], 198 AD2d 421) and, accordingly, the petition to stay arbitration was properly granted. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
225 A.D.2d 486 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hardina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.