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: ELRAC, INC., etc., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Birtis EXUM, Respondent-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered March 11, 2009, granting the petition of Elrac, Inc., for a permanent stay of arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition denied.
Where respondent, operating a motor vehicle owned by petitioner, who was his employer, was in an accident with an uninsured motorist, the court erred in granting the petition to stay arbitration of his uninsured motorist claim against petitioner. Petitioner argues that since the accident occurred in the regular course of respondent's employment, the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law preclude respondent from arbitrating a claim against his employer, who was self-insured (see Workers' Compensation Law § 11). Notably, although petitioner is self-insured, it is required to provide uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to Insurance Law § 3420[f][1] (see Matter of Allstate Insur. Co. v. Shaw, 52 N.Y.2d 818 [1980]; Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. [Thom], 70 A.D.2d 158 [1979], affd 52 N.Y.2d 1032 [1981] ). It follows that the right to obtain uninsured motorist protection from a self-insurer is no less than the corresponding right under a policy issued by an insurer (see Matter of Country-Wide Insur. Co. [Manning], 96 A.D.2d 471, 472 [1983], affd 62 N.Y.2d 748 [1984] ). Given the public policy of this State requiring insurance against injury caused by an uninsured motorist (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Amato, 72 N.Y.2d 288, 292 [1988] ), we find that a self-insured employer is required to provide mandatory uninsured motorist benefits to employees and that the Workers' Compensation Law does not preclude the employee from filing such a claim against the employer. Accordingly, the petition to stay arbitration should be denied.
Furthermore, we reject the petition as untimely, as it was filed thirteen months after petitioner received respondent's notice of intention to arbitrate, long after expiration of the twenty-day time limitation of CPLR 7503[c].
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 04, 2010
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)