From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kunz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1992
182 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 13, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, and arbitration is permanently stayed.

Although the insurance policy at issue is arguably ambiguous as to whether the respondent had purchased merely the required uninsured motorist coverage (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [1]) or whether he had also purchased underinsured motorist coverage (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [f] [2]), the petitioner was entitled to a stay of arbitration. Since the respondent clearly purchased a policy with a $10,000 limit for bodily injury for "each person" and $20,000 for "each accident" and since the policy covering the other vehicle involved in t`e accident had a limit of $25,000, "underinsured" motorist coverage was "definitionally not available" (see, Maurizzio v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 73 N.Y.2d 951, 953; Matter of Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v Schulman, 162 A.D.2d 450, 451), and there can be no claim to arbitrate here. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kunz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1992
182 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Kunz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Appellant, v. JOSEPH…

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

Date published: Apr 13, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 272

Citing Cases

Matter of Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Cinisomo

Although Aetna's proceeding was timely, we find that Aetna was not entitled to a stay of arbitration. The…