From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 2004
8 A.D.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-05555.

Decided June 14, 2004.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.H.O.), dated April 28, 2003, which, upon finding its disclaimer to be void, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.

Saretsky Katz Dranoff Glass, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Howard J. Newman and Patrick J. Dellay of counsel), for appellant.

Samuel K. Rubin, Bethpage, N.Y. (Lawrence R. Miles of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Seidemann Mermelstein, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Laurie E. Mermelstein, Seth Eisenberger, and David Seidemann of counsel), for respondent-respondent.

Jones Hirsch Connors Bull, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David M. Feldman and Steven H. Kaplan of counsel), for additional respondent-respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The disputed disclaimer of the appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm), pursuant to the "car business" exclusion of its policy ( see 11 NYCRR 60-1.1[d][2][i]; National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Progressive Ins. Co., 287 A.D.2d 697, 698; Piliero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 12 A.D.2d 130; Strizik v. Home Indem. Co., 137 Misc.2d 12), was issued solely to Mario Biondo, the permissive operator of the vehicle of its insured, Gregory Persak. No disclaimer was issued to the insured. Moreover, Caliber One, which insured Biondo's employer, RAD Parking, Inc., acknowledged that its policy applied to Biondo, although allegedly only as "excess" to State Farm's purported coverage.

Accordingly, irrespective of the validity of State Farm's disclaimer, both the owner and the operator of the alleged tortfeasors' vehicle were insured at the time of the accident. Since that was the only relevant issue that needed to be decided in this proceeding, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition and permanently stayed the arbitration.

FLORIO, J.P., SCHMIDT, ADAMS and FISHER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Rosario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 2004
8 A.D.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Rosario

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner-respondent, v. ERIC…

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

Date published: Jun 14, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 483 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 309

Citing Cases

Berger v. Shem Rokeach, Clark C. Mcneil, Breadberry Inc.

Then, as the New York Court of Appeals had held that VTL § 388 does not require insurers to cover every…