§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant,v.Patrick Fitzgerald, Respondent.

Brief

10 Cited authorities

  1. Matter of Met. Property Casualty Ins. v. Mancuso

    93 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 99 times
    In Matter of Metropolitan Prop. And Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mancuso, 93 N.Y.2d 487, 693 N.Y.S.2d 81, 715 N.E.2d 107 [1999]), the court held that "as soon as practicable" means that the insured must give notice with reasonable promptness after the insured knew, or should reasonably have known, judged by an objective standard, that the tortfeasor was underinsured.

  2. Raffellini v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 8777 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 46 times

    No. 129. Argued October 9, 2007. Decided November 15, 2007. APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of th e Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered October 24, 2006. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (David I. Schmidt, J.; op 8 Misc 3d 1023[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51253[U]), which had granted a cross motion by plaintiff to strike the fifth affirmative defense from defendant's answer. The following question

  3. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rivera

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 4300 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 25 times
    Stating that the New York State Legislature may authorize an administrative agency to "fill in the interstices in the legislative product by prescribing rules and regulations," but that such regulations must be "consistent with the enabling legislation" and cannot be "inconsistent with the statutory language or its underlying purposes"

  4. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Fitzgerald

    112 A.D.3d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 4 times

    2013-11-6 In the Matter of STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondent, v. Patrick FITZGERALD, appellant. Frank J. Laine, P.C., Plainview, N.Y. (Frank Braunstein of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau & Associates (Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale N.Y. [Cheryl F. Korman, Evan H. Krinick, and Harris J. Zakarin], of counsel), for respondent. REINALDO E. RIVERA Frank J. Laine, P.C., Plainview, N.Y. (Frank Braunstein of counsel), for appellant. Richard T. Lau & Associates (Rivkin Radler

  5. Country-Wide Ins. v. Wagoner

    45 N.Y.2d 581 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 41 times

    Argued September 14, 1978 Decided November 30, 1978 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, STEWART F. HANCOCK, J. J. Mark McCarthy for appellant. Eric M. Alderman and Bernard Samuels for Country-Wide Insurance Company, respondent. FUCHSBERG, J. As it comes to us on appeal, this case presents what is essentially a controversy between two insurance carriers, Country-Wide Insurance Company and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. The question it poses

  6. Progressive v. Scalamandre

    51 A.D.3d 932 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 6 times

    No. 2007-07971. May 20, 2008. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Maria Scalamandre appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spinner, J.), dated June 27, 2007, which granted the petition. Besen and Trop, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Robert E. Trop and Vilma Blankowitz of counsel), for appellant. Teresa Girolamo, Selden N.Y., for respondent. Before: Rivera, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Chambers, JJ. Ordered that the order

  7. Liberty Mutual Fire v. Rondina

    32 A.D.3d 1230 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 3 times

    CA 06-00015. September 22, 2006. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frederick J. Marshall, J.), entered May 5, 2005. The order granted the application for a permanent stay of arbitration. BOUVIER PARTNERSHIP, LLP, BUFFALO (NORMAN E.S. GREENE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. HURWITZ FINE, P.C., BUFFALO (SCOTT C. BILLMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Green, JJ. It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed

  8. State Farm Auto Ins v. Amato

    72 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 15 times
    In Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Amato, 72 N.Y.2d 288, 532 N.Y.S.2d 239, 528 N.E.2d 162 (1988), this Court was asked to decide whether the City of New York, as an unregulated self-insurer, was statutorily required to provide uninsured motorist coverage to two of its police officers who were injured when their police vehicles were struck by uninsured motor vehicles (Amato, 72 N.Y.2d at 294, 532 N.Y.S.2d 239, 528 N.E.2d 162).

  9. Williams v. City of New York

    144 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    November 21, 1988 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.). Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by adding a provision that, upon searching the record, summary judgment is granted to the plaintiff against Allstate Insurance Company, and it is declared that the plaintiff may seek uninsured motorist benefits from it; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff payable by the Allstate Insurance Company. In this case, the plaintiff Debra A

  10. Section 60-2.3 - [Effective 4/30/2024] Requirements for sum endorsements

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 11 § 60-2.3   Cited 113 times

    (a) The declarations page of every new or renewal motor vehicle liability insurance policy issued, if SUM coverage is purchased by the policyholder, shall state: (1) the SUM limits, instead of the amount of mandatory UM coverage; and (2) the maximum amount payable under SUM coverage shall be the policy's SUM limits reduced and thus offset by motor vehicle bodily injury liability insurance policy or bond payments received from, or on behalf of, any negligent party involved in the accident, as specified