From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Aetna Cas. Surety Co. v. Scirica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 4, 1991
170 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 4, 1991

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


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

On December, 15, 1986, the appellant, John Scirica, was involved in a two-car accident while driving his employer's car. The petitioner, Aetna Casualty Surety Company (hereinafter Aetna), was the insurer of the employer's car. The appellant filed a claim with Aetna under the underinsured motorist provisions of the policy and subsequently moved to compel arbitration. Aetna then commenced the instant proceeding to stay arbitration on the grounds, inter alia, that the appellant had failed to document or prove whether he had been paid any moneys by the driver of the other vehicle, the responsible tortfeasor, and failed to supply information indicating the amount of coverage afforded by the other driver's policy. Thereafter, it became apparent that the appellant had settled his claim against the other driver without Aetna's consent in violation of the terms of the policy and to the prejudice of Aetna's subrogation rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that the appellant was precluded from asserting his underinsured motorist claim (see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Taglianetti, 122 A.D.2d 40; Weinberg v Transamerica Ins. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 379).

The appellant's contention that Aetna should be estopped from asserting this defense on the ground that it never informed him of its disclaimer in writing (see, Insurance Law § 3420 [d]), is unpreserved for appellate review since it is only raised for the first time on appeal. In any event, we find that Aetna's papers in support of its application to stay arbitration, specifically its reply affirmation, clearly informed the appellant in writing, of its disclaimer of liability, thus complying with the statutory requirement. In view of the circumstances giving rise to the disclosure of the appellant's settlement with the other driver, it cannot be said that Aetna's actions constituted a waiver of its right to disclaim liability. As soon as Aetna was made aware of sufficient facts to support a disclaimer it disclaimed coverage (see, Schiff Assocs. v Flack, 51 N.Y.2d 692; cf., Farmers Fire Ins. Co. v Brighton, 142 A.D.2d 547; Matter of Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v Freda, 156 A.D.2d 364).

We have reviewed the appellant's other claim and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and O'Brien, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Aetna Cas. Surety Co. v. Scirica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 4, 1991
170 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Matter of Aetna Cas. Surety Co. v. Scirica

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of AETNA CASUALTY SURETY COMPANY, Respondent, v. JOHN…

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

Date published: Feb 4, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 448 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
565 N.Y.S.2d 557

Citing Cases

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Monge

There is nothing in the record before the court to indicate that the petitioner's consent was sought prior to…

THOMAS v. MAT POWER, INC

The plaintiffs contend that the psychological injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff Scott Thomas were…