TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Alfarone

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Robert Alfarone, Jr.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Alfarone, 62 A.D.2d 1034 (1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 17, 1978
Citations
62 A.D.2d 1034404 N.Y.S.2d 351978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11103

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In a proceeding, inter alia, to stay arbitration under the New York automobile accident indemnification *1035 endorsement contained in a policy issued by petitioner, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 6, 1977, which denied the application. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. This case involves an injury to an infant resulting from a collision of unregistered trail bikes which were operated on trails on private property. In determining an application to stay arbitration, courts are confined to the narrow issue of whether the dispute is arbitrable and the merits of the claim are not to be reached (Matter of Schachter [Witte & Co.], 52 AD2d 121 ). The present dispute involves questions of fact and issues of contract interpretation concerning whether the claimant was injured by a motor vehicle on a public highway. This dispute comes within the language of the policy’s arbitration clause, which provides for arbitration of any claim where the claimant and the company “do not agree that such person is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury to the insured”. The scope of legal entitlement necessarily includes a question of coverage and, therefore, the issues must be resolved by the arbitrators. The claimant’s failure to give notice within 90 days may be excused in the absence of any showing of prejudice and in view of the claimant’s young age (12 years old) (see Matter of Raiford v Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp., 29 AD2d 883 ). Bamiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Eabin, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1990: 12004: 119902026peak 1990 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
In re Arbitration Between Schachter (Lester Witte & Co.), 52 A.D.2d 121 (1976) 12
Raiford v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp., 29 A.D.2d 883 (1968) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list