From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. Travelers Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 1986
118 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

March 31, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.).


Order and judgment affirmed, with costs.

This is the second time that this matter is before this court. The first time, the appellant challenged an award of $95,000 in favor of the petitioner on the grounds that the award was irrational and that the arbitration panel was improperly appointed by the American Arbitration Association (hereinafter AAA). On that occasion, this court vacated the award, stating, in pertinent part, "[T]he award of $95,000 was clearly excessive and not supported by any reasonable basis in the record * * * Given the absence of probative evidence establishing a causal relationship to any degree of medical certainty between the petitioner's injuries sustained in the 1979 accident and her subsequent fall in May 1981, it was irrational for the arbitrators to consider this fact in rendering their decision" (Rose v. Travelers Ins. Co., 96 A.D.2d 551, appeal dismissed 60 N.Y.2d 860). The matter was remitted for a new hearing (see, Rose v. Travelers Ins. Co., supra).

At the second hearing, before the same arbitration panel, the petitioner submitted new evidence consisting of the testimony of Dr. Harvey R. Gable, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon. We find that Dr. Gable's testimony, including his opinion, "based upon a reasonable medical certainty" that a causal connection existed between the petitioner's 1979 accident and her subsequent fall in May 1981 was sufficient to support the new award in the petitioner's favor in the principal sum of $95,000.

With respect to the appellant's renewed claim that the arbitration panel was improperly selected by the AAA, we note that the parties' arbitration agreement provided that any arbitration proceeding between them was to be governed by the Accident Claims Arbitration Rules of the AAA. The appellant claims that the AAA's placement of Leonard Lekarew on the arbitration panel at both hearings constituted a violation of rule 8 of the Accident Claims Arbitration Rules, since the appellant had made a timely request for his name to be stricken from the list of potential arbitrators. However, under rule 24 of the Accident Claims Arbitration Rules, by proceeding with arbitration at both the first and second hearings, without making any prior objection in writing to the AAA that rule 8 had been violated by the selection of Lekarew, the appellant waived its right to object to the validity of the arbitration award on this basis. In any event, the appellant having submitted no evidence indicating that Lekarew was partial or biased, there would be no reason why the award should be disturbed because of his presence on the arbitration panel. Lazer, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rose v. Travelers Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 1986
118 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Rose v. Travelers Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:ANNA ROSE, Respondent, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 31, 1986

Citations

118 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

York Research Corp. v. Landgarten

Id. at 107-08. York argues that because it raised an objection "during the course of the arbitration…

Santana v. Country-Wide Ins. Co.

Any claims related to the alleged bias of an arbitrator shall be deemed waived by a complaining party who…