From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farley v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

November 16, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Siracuse, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Because plaintiffs have demonstrated that the damages might well reach into the excess coverage, a declaratory judgment action is the appropriate vehicle to determine whether coverage exists under the State Farm policy (see, State Farm Fire Cas. Co. v. LiMauro, 103 A.D.2d 514, 518, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 369; Hollander v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 60 A.D.2d 380, 383, lv. denied 44 N.Y.2d 646; Post v. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co., 227 App. Div. 156, affd. 254 N.Y. 541). Plaintiffs, as the injured parties, have standing to commence this action (see, Reliance Ins. Co. v. Garsart Bldg. Corp., 122 A.D.2d 128, 131; Curreri v. Allstate Ins. Co., 37 Misc.2d 557). Moreover, although plaintiffs initially neglected to join Pamela Lautner as a defendant, Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs' request to add her as a party defendant (see, CPLR 1001 [a]) so the case is now in the proper posture.


Summaries of

Farley v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1990
167 A.D.2d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Farley v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:DEBORAH A. FARLEY et al., Respondents, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1990

Citations

167 A.D.2d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

Watson v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co.

This Court reversed the order of the Supreme Court, noting that by its terms, Insurance Law § 3420 "does not…

Tepper v. New York Convention Ctr. Op. Corp.

Therefore, George Little's motion for breach of contract and indemnification is denied as there are triable…