From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Interboro Mutual Indemy. Ins. v. Sarno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 2000
277 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued October 31, 2000.

November 28, 2000.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J. H.O.), dated November 16, 1999, which granted the application.

Kujawski Delli Carpini, Deer Park, N.Y. (Hugh F. Brammer of counsel), for appellant.

Jerrold N. Cohen, Mineola, N.Y., for petitioner-respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The relevant provision of the subject insurance policy required that the appellant give written notice of an underinsured motorist claim to the petitioner "as soon as practicable", from the date she knew or should have known that the tortfeasor was underinsured (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mancuso, 93 N.Y.2d 487; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Montopoli, 262 A.D.2d 647). Furthermore, the appellant was obligated to demonstrate that she acted with due diligence in ascertaining the insurance status of the vehicles involved in the accident (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mancuso, supra; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Bernardine, 266 A.D.2d 543; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Montopoli, supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Adams, 259 A.D.2d 551).

There is no evidence that the appellant made any effort, other than tendering a complaint to one of the tortfeasor's insurers, to acquire information regarding insurance coverage. Moreover, the appellant gave no excuse as to why she did not make such an effort. Accordingly, the appellant did not sustain her burden of demonstrating due diligence or a reasonable excuse for the delay in ascertaining the tortfeasors' insurance status. Therefore, notice of the claim was not given as soon as practicable, and arbitration was properly stayed (see, Matter of Metropolitan Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mancuso, supra; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Bernardine, supra; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Montopoli, supra; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Adams, supra).


Summaries of

In re Interboro Mutual Indemy. Ins. v. Sarno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 28, 2000
277 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

In re Interboro Mutual Indemy. Ins. v. Sarno

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF INTERBORO MUTUAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY…

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

Date published: Nov 28, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 707

Citing Cases

Liberty Mutual Ins. v. Rapisarda

The appellant failed to provide the petitioner with notice of his underinsured motorist claim as soon as…

In re Pro. Nort. Ins. Co.

r of Allstate Ins. Co. [White], 231 AD2d 950; cf. Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v Wexler, 276 AD2d 490,…