From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Montopoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 1999
262 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted May 19, 1999

June 28, 1999

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay the arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.), dated August 4, 1998, which granted the application.

James J. Killerlane, White Plains, N.Y., for appellant.

Gallagher, Walker, Bianco Plastaras, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert J. Walker and Michael J. Balamoti of counsel), for respondent.

GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The relevant provision of the subject insurance policy required that the appellant, William Montopoli, give notice of the claim to the petitioner "within 90 days or as soon as practicable". The appellant was required to give notice within 90 days or as soon as practicable from the date he knew or should have known that the tortfeasor was underinsured ( see, Matter of Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Mancuso, 93 N.Y.2d 487 [June 8, 1999]; Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N Y v. Acker-Fitzsimons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436, 441; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. [Oglesby], 219 A.D.2d 771; Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. v. Littleton, 218 A.D.2d 661).

The appellant commenced an action against the tortfeasor nine months after the accident and made a demand for insurance information 11 months after the accident. The appellant gave notice of a possible underinsurance claim one year and 10 months after the accident. He was therefore obligated to demonstrate that he acted with due diligence in ascertaining the insurance status of the vehicle involved in the collision ( see, Matter of Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Mancuso, supra; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Adams, 259 A.D.2d 551 [2d Dept., Mar. 8, 1999]; Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Edgerson, 195 A.D.2d 560, 561; Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pizzonia, 147 A.D.2d 703). On the record before us, the appellant has failed to sustain his burden of demonstrating due diligence or a reasonable excuse for the delay in ascertaining the tortfeasor's insurance status. Therefore, notice of the claim was not given as soon as practicable ( see, Matter of Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Mancuso, supra; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Adams, supra; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Dewyea], 245 A.D.2d 667; Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. [Dombroski], 235 A.D.2d 606; Schiebel v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 166 A.D.2d 520; Matter of Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hurban, 160 A.D.2d 873).


Summaries of

Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Montopoli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 28, 1999
262 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Montopoli

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent, v. WILLIAM…

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

Date published: Jun 28, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 459

Citing Cases

Travelers Ins. v. Cohen

The Court of Appeals has held that the phrase "as soon as practicable," as used in the SUM context, means…

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. v. Sparacio

However, the Supreme Court failed to determine the issue of timely written notice of the claim. Pursuant to…