TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Arbitration between State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies & Proper

In the Matter of the Arbitration between State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies, and April L. Proper

In re the Arbitration between State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Companies & Proper, 300 A.D.2d 1095 (2002)
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
December 30, 2002
Docket
No. 1
Citations
300 A.D.2d 1095751 N.Y.S.2d 8102002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13007

Opinion of the Court

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

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Lane, J.), entered February 5, 2002, which granted the petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of respondent’s claim for supplemental uninsured motorist benefits.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration of respondent’s claim for supplemental uninsured motorist (SUM) benefits. Respondent was injured in an automobile accident on September 29, 1999 but did not provide petitioner with notice of her SUM claim until September 14, 2001. The insurance policy issued to respondent by petitioner required her to give notice of a SUM claim “as soon as practicable,” i.e., “with reasonable promptness after [she] knew or should reasonably have known that the tortfeasor was underinsured” (Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487, 495 ). Respondent *1096 failed to meet her burden of establishing a reasonable excuse for her nearly two-year delay in giving notice (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Earl], 284 AD2d 1002, 1004 ; Unwin v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 268 AD2d 669, 670-671 ). “The nature and extent of respondent’s injury did not change from the time of the accident until the time when respondent provided petitioner with notice of the SUM claim” (Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. [Moore], 280 AD2d 923, 924 ; see Unwin, 268 AD2d at 671 ). Respondent also failed to demonstrate that she exercised due diligence in ascertaining the tortfeasor’s policy limits (see Matter of Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v DiGregorio, 294 AD2d 579, 580-581 ; Matter of Interboro Mut. Indent. Ins. Co. v Sarno, 277 AD2d 454, 455 ). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

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

2003: 12004: 120032026peak 2003 · 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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Unwin v. N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins., 268 A.D.2d 669 (2000) 10
Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Mancuso, 715 N.E.2d 107 (N.Y. 1999) 84
Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. DiGregorio, 294 A.D.2d 579 (2002) 11
In re the Arbitration between Allstate Ins. & Earl, 284 A.D.2d 1002 (2001) 10
In re Arbitration between N.Y. Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. & Moore, 280 A.D.2d 923 (2001) 5
Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. v. Sarno, 277 A.D.2d 454 (2000) 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