TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Matthias v. Government Employees Insurance

Frank Matthias v. Government Employees Insurance Company

Matthias v. Gov't Employees Ins., 132 A.D.2d 534 (1987)
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
July 6, 1987
Citations
132 A.D.2d 534517 N.Y.S.2d 5401987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 49062

Opinion of the Court

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, Government Employees Insurance Company (hereinafter GEICO) appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated November 7, 1986, which vacated the arbitration award denying the petitioner recovery under his policy of insurance.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the arbitration award is reinstated and confirmed.

Based upon the record before us, we cannot conclude that the arbitrator’s award, as affirmed by the master arbitrator’s determination, was irrational (see, Matter of Smith [Firemen’s Ins. Co.], 55 NY2d 224 ; Matter of Sansiviero v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 109 AD2d 840, 842 , lv denied 66 NY2d 606 ). The record reveals that the petitioner failed to appear at three physical examinations scheduled by the appellant, a condition precedent to the collection of any benefits under the policy. While the petitioner attempted at a hearing to proffer excuses for his failure to appear on these three occasions, his testimony was rejected as incredible based upon inconsistencies between his explanations and the testimony of his wife. We see no basis upon which to disturb that finding. The arbitrator’s determination was therefore rationally based upon the failure of the insured to comply with the condition precedent (see, e.g., Averbuch v Home Ins. Co., 114 AD2d 827, 829 ; Bulzomi v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 878 ). Rubin, J. P., Kooper, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1993: 319932026peak 1993 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dennis Vanhaaren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company989 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993)
  2. VanHaaren v. State FarmNo. 92-1667 (1st Cir. Mar. 29, 1993)
  3. VanHaaren v. State FarmNo. 92-1667 (1st Cir. Mar. 29, 1993)

Most recent

  1. VanHaaren v. State FarmNo. 92-1667 (1st Cir. Mar. 29, 1993)
  2. VanHaaren v. State FarmNo. 92-1667 (1st Cir. Mar. 29, 1993)
  3. Dennis Vanhaaren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company989 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1993)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Arbitration Between Smith & Firemen's Ins., 433 N.E.2d 509 (N.Y. 1982) 53
Bulzomi v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins., 92 A.D.2d 878 (1983) 29
Averbuch v. Home Ins., 114 A.D.2d 827 (1985) 23
Sansiviero v. Royal Globe Ins., 109 A.D.2d 840 (1985) 3

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