From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Allstate Insurance Co. v. Frederick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1999
266 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted September 29, 1999

November 8, 1999

Bruno, Gerbino Macchia, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Steven D. Brower of counsel), for appellant.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, the petitioner appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated September 8, 1998, as denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the petition is reinstated, arbitration is stayed pending an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the alleged offending vehicle was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on the date of the subject accident, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, to join State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Steven E. Lurie as party respondents, and for further proceedings thereafter.

The petitioner met its initial burden of proving that the alleged offending vehicle was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm) at the time of the accident (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fenelon, 202 A.D.2d 436 ). Thus, the burden shifted to the respondent to prove that the offending vehicle was not insured by Staye Farm at the time of the accident (see, Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Tichman, 185 A.D.2d 884, 886 ). The Supreme Court erred in its determination that the respondent met his burden. Under the circumstances, a hearing is required to determine if the offending vehicle was insured by State Farm on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings, including the joining of State Farm and its insured, Steven G. Lurie, as respondents.

It is noted that the petitioner was not required to disclaim coverage, as "[t]he uninsured motorist coverage of the petitioner's policy does not attach unless and until it has been established that there was no insurance coverage on the [offending] vehicle on the date of the accident" (Matter of Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 102 A.D.2d 772, 774 ; see also, Matter of State farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vazquez, 249 A.D.2d 312 ).

O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Allstate Insurance Co. v. Frederick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 8, 1999
266 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Allstate Insurance Co. v. Frederick

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, appellant, v. DAVID R…

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

Date published: Nov 8, 1999

Citations

266 A.D.2d 283 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
698 N.Y.S.2d 266

Citing Cases

In Matter of Hartford Ins. Co. v. Mulcahy

It is well-settled that once the petitioner meets the burden of establishing, prima facie, that the vehicle…

State v. Mazyck

The petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company met its burden of establishing, prima facie,…