From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Country-Wide Ins. v. Park

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 30, 2000
277 A.D.2d 175 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 30, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe J.), entered June 23, 1999, which granted petitioner-insurer's application for a permanent stay of arbitration of respondents' uninsured motorist claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thomas Torto, for petitioner-respondent.

Kelly A. Choe, for respondents-appellants.

Before: Sullivan, P.J., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.


Arbitration of respondent-appellants' uninsured motorist claims was properly stayed since respondent-appellants did not comply with the condition precedent to coverage under the hit-and-run portion of the uninsured motorist endorsement of the subject insurance policy, which required notice within 90 days of the accident (see, Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mancuso, 202 A.D.2d 428; Matter of Home Indem. Co. v. Messana, 139 A.D.2d 513) and respondents provided no excuse for such failure (see, id.). We note that even if, as respondents now contend, the subject policy permitted notice to the insurer of their uninsured motorist claims "as soon [after the initial 90-day period] as practicable", it would be clear that such notice was not given; it was evident in the immediate aftermath of the hit-and-run accident that the hit-and-run vehicle and driver would not be identified since no information respecting either had been gathered. The fact that the petitioner insurer may have received some notice of the accident through respondents' no-fault claim does not vitiate the breach of the policy requirement (see, Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v. Velasquez, 211 A.D.2d 636;Matter of Wausau Ins. Co. v. Bartz, 197 A.D.2d 627; Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. v. Madera, 189 A.D.2d 570). A different result is not required because respondents are not the policyholders. There is no claim that respondents, who reside at the same address as the policyholders, did not have access to the policy (see, Matter of Am. Home Assur. Co. v. Ceballos, 224 A.D.2d 612, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 809).

We have considered respondents' other arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re Country-Wide Ins. v. Park

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 30, 2000
277 A.D.2d 175 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

In re Country-Wide Ins. v. Park

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLICATION OF COUNTRY-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY…

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

Date published: Nov 30, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 175 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
171 N.Y.S.2d 132

Citing Cases

MATTER OF NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO. (WORLEY)

Although respondent has chosen not to address this issue, the Court finds that petitioner has not submitted…

AIU Insurance v. Henry

ime limit provided in the insurance policy or within a reasonable time under all the circumstances" as a…