Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Domenico DiBELLO, Respondent-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice L. Bowman, J.), entered September 6, 2006, which, after a framed issue hearing, denied the petition to stay arbitration of an underinsured motorist claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition granted.
Petitioner insurer carried its burden of demonstrating facts to warrant entitlement to a stay on the ground of lack of coverage (see Matter of New York Cent. Fire Ins. Co. v. Marchesi, 238 A.D.2d 135, 655 N.Y.S.2d 515 [1997], lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 806, 663 N.Y.S.2d 511, 686 N.E.2d 223 [1997]; Matter of Empire Mut. Ins. Co. [Greaney], 156 A.D.2d 154, 155, 548 N.Y.S.2d 202 [1989] ) by showing that the injured driver's Bronx residence, as provided in the police accident report and his medical records, differed from the residence in Pelham of the named insured, his daughter, so that the driver was not a “resident in the same household” as the named insured, as required by the policy. The hearing court incorrectly relied upon a deed, apparently submitted after the hearing, showing that the named insured held joint title to the house in which her father resided. There was no evidence that she resided there, which is the unambiguous governing criterion under the policy language (see e.g. Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Gutstein, 80 N.Y.2d 773, 587 N.Y.S.2d 268, 599 N.E.2d 672 [1992]; Ellen v. Lauer, 210 A.D.2d 87, 89-90, 620 N.Y.S.2d 34 [1994] ). In view of the lack of coverage, we need not address whether the notice of claim was timely or whether the insurer was entitled to discovery.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 17, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)