From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arbitration Btwn. State Farm Mut. Auto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 2002
300 A.D.2d 1095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

CA 02-01363

December 30, 2002.

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Lane, J.), entered February 5, 2002, which granted the petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of respondent's claim for supplemental uninsured motorist benefits.

NICHOLAS, PEROT STRAUSS, P.C., AKRON (LAWRENCE A. PEROT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

BOUVIER, O'CONNOR, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HAYES, SCUDDER, AND LAWTON, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly granted the petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of respondent's claim for supplemental uninsured motorist (SUM) benefits. Respondent was injured in an automobile accident on September 29, 1999 but did not provide petitioner with notice of her SUM claim until September 14, 2001. The insurance policy issued to respondent by petitioner required her to give notice of a SUM claim "as soon as practicable," i.e., "with reasonable promptness after [she] knew or should reasonably have known that the tortfeasor was underinsured" ( Matter of Metropolitan Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mancuso, 93 N.Y.2d 487, 495). Respondent failed to meet her burden of establishing a reasonable excuse for her nearly two-year delay in giving notice ( see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Earl], 284 A.D.2d 1002, 1004; Unwin v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 268 A.D.2d 669, 670-671). "The nature and extent of respondent's injury did not change from the time of the accident until the time when respondent provided petitioner with notice of the SUM claim" ( Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Moore], 280 A.D.2d 923; see Unwin, 268 A.D.2d at 671). Respondent also failed to demonstrate that she exercised due diligence in ascertaining the tortfeasor's policy limits ( see Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. DiGregorio, 294 A.D.2d 579, 580-581; Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Sarno, 277 A.D.2d 454, 455).


Summaries of

Arbitration Btwn. State Farm Mut. Auto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 2002
300 A.D.2d 1095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Arbitration Btwn. State Farm Mut. Auto

Case Details

Full title:MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION BETWEEN STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE…

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

Date published: Dec 30, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 1095 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 810

Citing Cases

In re Arbitration Between State Farm Mutual

We conclude that Supreme Court should have granted the petition. Respondent failed to meet his burden of…

Brown v. Travelers Insurance Company

Here, plaintiff knew or at the very least should have known that her injuries were "serious" within the…