From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Allstate Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 4, 1997
245 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 4, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court (Ryan, Jr., J.).


On July 29, 1993, respondent was injured in a collision with a vehicle driven by Matthew Bujold. Respondent provided petitioner, his automobile insurance carrier, with written notice of the accident the same day. Respondent commenced a personal injury action against Bujold in November 1994. At an examination before trial on November 30, 1995, respondent learned that Bujold carried the minimum insurance coverage of $10,000/$20,000. On December 1, 1995, respondent's counsel notified petitioner by telephone that respondent would make a claim to his underinsurance benefits. Petitioner denied the claim on the ground that respondent failed to notify it of the claim for underinsurance within 90 days of the date of the accident or as soon thereafter as practicable, as provided in respondent's insurance policy. Respondent made a demand for arbitration of his underinsurance claim prompting petitioner to commence this proceeding to stay arbitration. Supreme Court granted the petition and this appeal ensued.

Because respondent failed to establish any reasonable excuse for his delay or establish due diligence in ascertaining the amount of Bujold's policy limits for over one year after the commencement of the action, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted petitioner's application to stay arbitration (see, e.g., Schiebel v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 166 A.D.2d 520; cf., Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [White], 231 A.D.2d 950; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Edgerson, 195 A.D.2d 560, 561). The fact that petitioner had potential knowledge of respondent's claim for underinsurance benefits because it insured both respondent and Bujold and was aware of the extent of respondent's injuries and Bujold's limited coverage does not negate respondent's breach of the terms of the insurance policy that require written notice of his claim for underinsurance benefits (see generally, Matter of Aetna Life Cas. v. Ocasio, 232 A.D.2d 409). Moreover, respondent failed to provide petitioner with written notification of his claim for underinsurance motorist benefits until March 18, 1996, despite learning of the limited insurance coverage of Bujold on November 30, 1995.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Matter of Allstate Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Dec 4, 1997
245 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Allstate Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Arbitration between ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Dec 4, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 667 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 684

Citing Cases

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. v. Sparacio

However, the Supreme Court failed to determine the issue of timely written notice of the claim. Pursuant to…

Owen v. Allstate Insurance Company

Here, plaintiff was injured as a result of a motor vehicle pedestrian accident on February 28, 1994 and…