From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Statewide Insurance Company v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1986
125 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

December 22, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, and that branch of the petitioner Statewide Insurance Company's petition which sought a stay of arbitration is granted.

For an insurer to disclaim its liability to its insured on the ground of lack of cooperation, the insurer must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured's cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insurer were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured's cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction (see, Thrasher v. United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 168-169). Even assuming that the hearsay testimony adduced at the trial by witnesses Mauro and Kunstler was admissible to demonstrate diligence, Allstate has failed to establish a right to disclaim.

The record reveals that there was insufficient proof of all three Thrasher prongs. Allstate Insurance Company failed to establish that it was sufficiently diligent (see, Alexander v Stone, 45 A.D.2d 216; Wallace v. Universal Ins. Co., 18 A.D.2d 121, affd 13 N.Y.2d 978), or that its efforts were reasonably calculated to obtain its insured's cooperation (see, Coleman v National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 28 A.D.2d 1073, 1074, affd 23 N.Y.2d 836; National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lococo, 20 A.D.2d 785, affd 16 N.Y.2d 585). Further, the nonaction of the insured, which is the only factual basis in this case, cannot in this instance be escalated into a finding of "`willful and avowed obstruction'" (Thrasher v. United States Liab. Ins. Co., supra, at p 168; Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. [Stroud — Boston Old Colony Ins. Co.], 36 N.Y.2d 719, 721-722).

In view of our resolution of the disclaimer issue, there is no need to reach the other contentions of the petitioner. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Statewide Insurance Company v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 22, 1986
125 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Matter of Statewide Insurance Company v. Ray

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of STATEWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. WILLIAM RAY…

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

Date published: Dec 22, 1986

Citations

125 A.D.2d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Imeri

While the Thrasher standard places a heavy burden upon the carrier (Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. [Stroud],…

Pawtucket Mutual Insurance Company v. Soler

ich the insureds were apprised of their continuing obligation to cooperate, the insureds' unexplained absence…