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.
Matter of Arbitration between NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, David J. McGILL, Respondent.
Supreme Court erred in refusing to grant the petition seeking a stay of underinsurance arbitration and a declaration that the offset provision in the underinsured motorist coverage endorsement of the supplementary uninsured motorist coverage issued by petitioner to respondent is enforceable (see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Stolarz-N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co.], 81 N.Y.2d 219, 597 N.Y.S.2d 904, 613 N.E.2d 936; Matter of Travelers Ins. Co. [Magyar], 217 A.D.2d 954, 629 N.Y.S.2d 900). We reject respondent's contention that, because petitioner uses separate endorsements to differentiate uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, it is not entitled to enforce the offset provision. The dispositive issue is whether there is a single combined limit of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, not whether there is a single endorsement. Because there is a single, combined limit of uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage in the policy at issue and the offset provision would apply only in certain instances, there is no ambiguity (see, Matter of Exchange Ins. Co. [Skomski], 224 A.D.2d 948, 637 N.Y.S.2d 561).
Respondent further contends that there is an ambiguity in the policy based upon the supplementary uninsured motorist limits on the declarations page and the offset provision in the endorsement. We disagree. The offset provision makes specific reference to the underinsurance endorsement, which unequivocally provides for an offset for “all sums paid because of the ‘bodily injury’ by or on behalf of persons or organizations who may be legally responsible.” There is no ambiguity precluding enforcement of the offset provision (see, Matter of Exchange Ins. Co. [Skomski], supra, at 949, 637 N.Y.S.2d 561; see also, Matter of Valente v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 77 N.Y.2d 894, 568 N.Y.S.2d 901, 571 N.E.2d 71).
We therefore grant judgment in favor of petitioner and declare that the offset provision is enforceable.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petition granted and judgment granted.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 19, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)