From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v. Velasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 9, 1995
211 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

January 9, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.).


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

In August 1991 the appellants' vehicle was involved in an accident with a car which fled the scene. Thereafter, the operator of the vehicle submitted an unsworn and undated application for no-fault benefits to the petitioner, State Farm Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm), the insurer of his vehicle. On January 2, 1992, the appellants served a demand for arbitration of their claim for uninsured motorist benefits arising from a hit-and-run accident. By notice of petition dated January 22, 1992, State Farm moved to stay arbitration on the ground that the appellants failed to comply with the terms of the insurance contract. State Farm contended that the appellants had failed to file, within 90 days of the accident, a statement under oath that they had a cause or causes of action arising out of the accident for damages against a person, or persons, whose identity was unascertainable.

The Supreme Court correctly stayed arbitration since the appellants failed to comply with the condition precedent to coverage under the uninsured motorist endorsement of the State Farm policy which required that they file a statement under oath within 90 days of the accident. In addition, contrary to the appellants' contention, the submission of the unsworn and undated application for no-fault benefits may not be deemed to have complied with this condition (see, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Romero, 109 A.D.2d 786). Nor does the fact that State Farm may have received some notice of the accident by virtue of the undated and unsigned no-fault application "vitiate the breach of the policy requirement" (Matter of Home Indem. Co. v. Messana, 139 A.D.2d 513).

Under the circumstances of this case we also find that State Farm's petition to stay arbitration was a "sufficient and timely notice of disclaimer as a matter of law under Insurance Law § 3420 (d), assuming a disclaimer was required" (Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Jiminez], 78 N.Y.2d 1054, 1056). Miller, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v. Velasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 9, 1995
211 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v. Velasquez

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of STATE FARM INSURANCE CO., Respondent, v. FAUSTO VELASQUEZ…

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

Date published: Jan 9, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
621 N.Y.S.2d 357

Citing Cases

State Farm Mutual v. Tubis

le," his delay was substantial, and his demand for arbitration was untimely as a matter of law ( see Great…

Matter of Legion Insurance v. Estevez

The Supreme Court properly granted the petition of Legion Insurance Company (hereinafter Legion) for a…