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, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Jose LeGRAND, Respondent–Respondent.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered November 8, 2010, which denied the petition seeking, inter alia, a permanent stay of arbitration, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 75, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the petition granted.
The failure to move to stay arbitration within the 20–day period specified in CPLR 7503(c) generally “constitutes a bar to judicial intrusion into arbitration proceedings” (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. Stekardis, 34 N.Y.2d 182, 184, 356 N.Y.S.2d 587, 313 N.E.2d 53 [1974]; see Matter of Spychalski [Continental Ins. Cos.], 45 N.Y.2d 847, 410 N.Y.S.2d 65, 382 N.E.2d 765 [1978] ). However, a motion to stay arbitration may be entertained outside the 20–day period when “its basis is that the parties never agreed to arbitrate, as distinct from situations in which there is an arbitration agreement which is nevertheless claimed to be invalid or unenforceable because its conditions have not been complied with” (Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], 56 N.Y.2d 264, 266, 451 N.Y.S.2d 703, 436 N.E.2d 1305 [1982] ).
It is undisputed that the subject accident occurred while the insured was driving a rental car in Mexico. The insured's automobile insurance policy provided benefits for accidents that occurred within the State of New York, “the United States, its territories or possessions, or Canada.” Since the policy did not provide for coverage in the geographic area where the accident occurred, it cannot be said that the parties ever agreed to arbitrate this claim (see Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. (Richards), 178 A.D.2d 142, 576 N.Y.S.2d 577 [1991], lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 756, 583 N.Y.S.2d 191, 592 N.E.2d 799 [1992]; cf. Matter of Fiveco, Inc. v. Haber, 11 N.Y.3d 140, 863 N.Y.S.2d 391, 893 N.E.2d 807 [2008] ).
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: January 17, 2012
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)