State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hardina

225 A.D.2d 486, 639 N.Y.2d 374, 639 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3089
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 26, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hardina, 225 A.D.2d 486, 639 N.Y.2d 374, 639 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3089 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 486 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hardina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Phoenix Insurance v. Kantlis
14 A.D.3d 418 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re the Arbitration between Transportation Insurance & Pecoraro
270 A.D.2d 851 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. Cooper
247 A.D.2d 209 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)