Opinion
01-14-2015
In the Matter of LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner-respondent, v. Sharita YOUNG, respondent, Richard Trotman, additional respondent, Geico Indemnity Company, additional respondent-appellant.
Gail S. Lauzon (Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y. [Donald S. Neumann, Jr. ], of counsel), for additional respondent-appellant. Martyn, Toher, Martyn & Rossi, Mineola, N.Y. (Christine J. Hill of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
Gail S. Lauzon (Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Garden City, N.Y. [Donald S. Neumann, Jr. ], of counsel), for additional respondent-appellant.
Martyn, Toher, Martyn & Rossi, Mineola, N.Y. (Christine J. Hill of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75, inter alia, to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, GEICO Indemnity Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), entered November 21, 2013, which, after a framed-issue hearing, granted the petition, permanently stayed the arbitration, and directed it to defend and indemnify its insured, Richard Trotman, with respect to the subject collision.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.
On October 20, 2009, a vehicle operated by Sharita Young allegedly was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by Richard Trotman. Young and two passengers in Trotman's vehicle filed claims with Trotman's insurer, GEICO Indemnity Company (hereinafter GEICO). GEICO disclaimed coverage on the ground that the claims resulted from an intentional act. Young then filed an uninsured motorist claim with her insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Liberty Mutual). When Young sought arbitration of that claim, Liberty Mutual commenced this proceeding, inter alia, to permanently stay the arbitration. The Supreme Court subsequently granted that branch of the petition which was to add Trotman and GEICO as additional respondents and held a framed-issue hearing on the issue of whether GEICO had properly disclaimed coverage under Trotman's policy. Following the hearing, the Supreme Court concluded that GEICO had not established that the collision was a "staged loss." Accordingly, it issued a judgment granting Liberty Mutual's petition for a permanent stay of arbitration of Young's uninsured motorist claim and directing GEICO to defend and indemnify Trotman with respect to the subject accident. GEICO appeals.
A deliberate collision by an insured is not a covered event under an insurance policy (see Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goddard, 29 A.D.3d 698, 699, 815 N.Y.S.2d 650 ; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laguerre, 305 A.D.2d 490, 491, 759 N.Y.S.2d 531 ; Matter of Metro Med. Diagnostics v. Eagle Ins. Co., 293 A.D.2d 751, 751–752, 741 N.Y.S.2d 284 ). Here, the strong circumstantial evidence at the framed-issue hearing established that Trotman intentionally caused the collision between his vehicle and Young's vehicle. In finding otherwise, the Supreme Court focused entirely on whether Trotman's vehicle suffered any damage, rather than on the totality of the evidence (see generally A.B. Med. Servs., PLLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 7 Misc.3d 822, 795 N.Y.S.2d 843 [Civ.Ct., Kings County] ). Accordingly, because the evidence at the hearing established that Trotman intentionally caused the collision with Young's vehicle, the collision between the two vehicles was not a covered event under Trotman's policy with GEICO. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in entering a judgment granting Liberty Mutual's petition for a permanent stay of arbitration of Young's claim for uninsured motorist benefits on the ground that Trotman's vehicle was insured and directing GEICO to defend and indemnify Trotman with respect to the subject accident (see Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goddard, 29 A.D.3d at 699, 815 N.Y.S.2d 650 ).