From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 1990
163 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

July 2, 1990

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


Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the application to permanently stay arbitration is granted.

Where a hearing is required to determine whether an offending vehicle was insured at the time of an accident, the initial burden is on the claimant's insurer to come forward with proof that the offending vehicle was insured (see, Matter of Wausau Ins. Co. v. Predestin, 114 A.D.2d 900, 901; Matter of State Wide Ins. Co. v. Libecci, 104 A.D.2d 893, 895; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Yeglinski, 79 A.D.2d 1029; Matter of Safeco Ins. Co. [Testagrossa], 67 A.D.2d 979, 981). The petitioner submitted a Department of Motor Vehicles form indicating that the vehicle had been insured (see, Matter of Safeco Ins. Co. [Testagrossa], supra). That evidence shifted the burden to the respondents to prove that the vehicle was never insured (see, Nassau Ins. Co. v. Minor, 72 A.D.2d 576, 577) or that the insurance had been canceled (see, Matter of Safeco Ins. Co. [Testagrossa], supra, at 981). The respondents, however, failed to meet their burden. Consequently, the judgment appealed from must be reversed.

At bar, the respondents attempted to meet their burden by proving that the offending vehicle's insurance had been canceled. Their attempt failed for two reasons. First, the language of the respondent insurer's notice of cancellation did not comply with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 and its implementing regulations (see, Barile v. Kavanaugh, 67 N.Y.2d 392, 396-399). Second, the respondents did not make a sufficient showing that the notice of cancellation had been mailed in compliance with the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313. There was no showing that the notice was duly addressed and mailed or that there existed an office practice and procedure used in the regular course of business that ensured the likelihood that such a notice was addressed and mailed (cf., Nassau Ins. Co. v. Murray, 46 N.Y.2d 828, 829-830). Kunzeman, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Castro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 1990
163 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Castro

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Appellant, v. JESSICA…

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

Date published: Jul 2, 1990

Citations

163 A.D.2d 313 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
557 N.Y.S.2d 442

Citing Cases

Matter of State-Wide Insurance Co. v. Morales

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs payable by petitioner-respondent, the petition…

Matter of Allstate Insurance Co. v. Solages

The petitioner made a prima facie case that the subject vehicle was insured at the time of the accident. The…