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: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rosa Pons DE LIRIANO, Respondent-Respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered on or about July 1, 2024, which denied the petition of Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) to permanently stay arbitration, dismissed the proceeding, and directed GEICO and respondent Rosa Pons De Liriano to proceed to arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and the arbitration permanently stayed.
Even if not timely under CPLR 7503(c), the petition to permanently stay arbitration should nevertheless have been granted under the “no agreement to arbitrate” exception (see Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], 56 N.Y.2d 264, 267–268 [1982]; see also Matter of Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp. [Hershman], 287 A.D.2d 412, 412 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 610 [2002]). Respondent De Liriano was not a party to any arbitration agreement permitting arbitration of her claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the policy issued by GEICO to nonparty Senasqueris Matos, the named insured. GEICO's Supplementary Uninsured Motorists Coverage endorsement defines “insured” to include the named insured and his spouse and the relatives of either the named insured or his spouse. “Relative” is defined as a person related to the named insured who resides in his household. GEICO established through testimony that De Liriano is not an insured because, although she resides with Matos, she is not his relative by either blood or marriage. Therefore, there was never an agreement between De Liriano and GEICO to arbitrate (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Marke, 121 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2d Dept 2014]; see also Travelers, 287 A.D.2d at 412).
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.
Docket No: 4176
Decided: April 24, 2025
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)