From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 20, 1994
205 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

June 20, 1994

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


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petitioner's application to stay arbitration is granted.

The respondents, Jerome Klein and Sonya Klein, who were passengers in a vehicle owned and operated by Herbert Semel, were injured when the Semel vehicle collided with an uninsured vehicle. The Kleins settled their claim against Semel for $300,000. They then demanded arbitration for uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to their own insurance policy with the petitioner. The Kleins' policy provided uninsured motorist coverage of $10,000 per person, $20,000 per accident.

The petitioner commenced the instant proceeding to stay arbitration with the Kleins, claiming that it was not liable to the Kleins under their policy because the $10,000/20,000 uninsured coverage was offset, and in this case subsumed, by the $300,000 that the Kleins recovered from Semel. Condition 5 of the uninsured motorist endorsement in the petitioner's policy provides that uninsured motorist benefits would be reduced by any sums paid by or on behalf of any "person or persons jointly or severally liable" with the uninsured driver. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner and the Kleins to proceed to arbitration, finding that the offset provision was inconsistent with the Insurance Law and that the Kleins were therefore entitled to seek uninsured motorist benefits under the policy, based on the involvement of the uninsured driver. We reverse.

There is nothing inherently objectionable about offsets against the limits of an insurance policy (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz — N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 N.Y.2d 219). Indeed, this Court has previously held that the condition 5 offset provision of the uninsured motorist endorsement is enforceable (see, Matter of Snyder v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 106 A.D.2d 388; State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Basile, 48 A.D.2d 868). Since the Kleins have recovered $300,000 from the insured tortfeasor, condition 5 of the uninsured motorist endorsement is enforceable, and the petitioner is not liable to the Kleins for uninsured motorist benefits (see, Matter of Snyder v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., supra; State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Basile, supra). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Klein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 20, 1994
205 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Auto. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Klein

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. OF HARTFORD, Appellant, v…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 1994

Citations

205 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
613 N.Y.S.2d 663

Citing Cases

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sinclair

After reaching this settlement with Nationwide, however, the Sinclairs settled with Liang Taxi, Inc., for…

Matter of Am. Mfr. Mut. Ins. v. Lucenti

In light of the Court of Appeals' statement that "[t]here is nothing inherently objectionable about offsets…