From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Elrac, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 2007
38 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Summary

In Elrac, Inc., we interpreted the Workers' Compensation Law and determined that the phrase "any other liability whatsoever" could not be interpreted literally to bar an employee from recovering uninsured motorist benefits from an employer (id. at 328).

Summary of this case from Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

Opinion

No. 2006-07298.

March 6, 2007.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), entered July 13, 2006, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Carman, Callahan Ingham, LLP, Farmingdale, N.Y. (Michael F. Ingham and James M. Carman of counsel), for appellant.

Alan Ross Associates, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Stuart K. Gechlik of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Crane, J.P., Krausman, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The respondents were passengers in a vehicle owned by the petitioner, ELRAC, Inc., doing business as Enterprise Rent a Car (hereinafter ELRAC), a self-insured car rental company, and operated by a nonparty to whom the vehicle had been rented. The subject vehicle was involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist and, approximately 3 ½ years later, the respondents served ELRAC with a demand for arbitration. ELRAC commenced this proceeding to permanently stay arbitration on the ground that the demand for arbitration was time-barred under the applicable three-year statute of limitations ( see CPLR 214). The Supreme Court, upon determining that the claim was governed by the six-year statute of limitations contained in CPLR 213 (2), denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. We affirm.

From an injured claimant's perspective, "[t]he right to obtain uninsured motorist protection from a self-insurer is no less than the corresponding right under a policy issued by an insurer" ( Matter of Country-Wide Ins. Co. [Manning], 96 AD2d 471, 472, affd 62 NY2d 748; see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Shaw, 52 NY2d 818, 820). ELRAC contends that while an injured claimant unquestionably has six years to assert an uninsured motorist claim against an insured owner's carrier ( see e.g. Jenkins v State Farm Ins. Co., 21 AD3d 529, 530), that person has only three years to assert an identical claim against a self-insured owner. We disagree. The respondents' claim for uninsured motorist benefits against a self-insured vehicle owner, while statutorily mandated, remains "contractual rather than statutory in nature" ( Matter of Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth. v Evans, 95 AD2d 470, 472; cf. Matter of De Luca [Motor Veh. Ace. Indent. Corp.], 17 NY2d 76, 79) and, as such, is subject to the six-year statute of limitations ( see Matter of New York City Health Hosps. Corp. [Degorter], 133 Misc 2d 93, 97). Accordingly, the petition was properly denied, and the proceeding was properly dismissed.


Summaries of

In re Elrac, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 2007
38 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

In Elrac, Inc., we interpreted the Workers' Compensation Law and determined that the phrase "any other liability whatsoever" could not be interpreted literally to bar an employee from recovering uninsured motorist benefits from an employer (id. at 328).

Summary of this case from Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

In Elrac, Inc., we interpreted the Workers' Compensation Law and determined that the phrase "any other liability whatsoever" could not be interpreted literally to bar an employee from recovering uninsured motorist benefits from an employer (id. at 328, 938 N.Y.S.2d 252, 961 N.E.2d 643).

Summary of this case from Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

In Elrac, Inc., we interpreted the Workers' Compensation Law and determined that the phrase "any other liability whatsoever" could not be interpreted literally to bar an employee from recovering uninsured motorist benefits from an employer (id. at 328, 938 N.Y.S.2d 252, 961 N.E.2d 643).

Summary of this case from Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
Case details for

In re Elrac, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In re Matter of ELRAC, INC., Doing Business as ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR…

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

Date published: Mar 6, 2007

Citations

38 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 1874
831 N.Y.S.2d 475

Citing Cases

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff maintained that the six-year statute of limitations controls this…

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff maintained that the six-year statute of limitations controls this…