Opinion
March 18, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff's claim for underinsurance benefits was subject to arbitration as provided by the respondent's insurance policy. Further, the respondent did not waive its right to rely on the policy's arbitration clause by initially disclaiming coverage or by later defending the propriety of its disclaimer in court (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Donath, 164 A.D.2d 889; see also, Matter of Vanguard Ins. Co. [Polchlopek], 18 N.Y.2d 376, 382). Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the reduction-in-coverage clause relating to offsets for underinsurance benefits is enforceable since the respondent's policy has a single-limit combined uninsurance/underinsurance endorsement (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz — N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 N.Y.2d 219; cf., Matter of United Community Ins. Co. v Mucatel, 127 Misc.2d 1045, 1046, affd 119 A.D.2d 1017, affd 69 N.Y.2d 777).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit (see, Matter of Valente v Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., 77 N.Y.2d 894; Fox v Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 132 A.D.2d 17). Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.