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: PROGRESSIVE NORTHEASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jonathan ROBBINS, Respondent; Judith Paul, et al., proposed additional Respondents; Bankers and Shippers Insurance Company of New York, proposed additional Respondent-Respondent.
In a proceeding to stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Kellman, J.H.O.), dated November 4, 1999, which denied the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On December 31, 1996, a vehicle owned by Maria Robbins and operated by Jonathan Robbins was allegedly struck in the rear by a vehicle owned and operated by Dewitt Joyner. The Joyner vehicle had been insured by Bankers and Shippers Insurance Company of New York (hereinafter Bankers), which, on September 26, 1996, sent Joyner a notice cancelling his insurance, effective October 14, 1996. The notice of cancellation provided, inter alia: “[I]nsurance must be in effect throughout the registration period”. At the time of the accident, Maria Robbins was insured under an automobile liability policy issued by the petitioner, Progressive Northeastern Insurance Company (hereinafter Progressive). Jonathan Robbins sought arbitration under the uninsured motorist provision of that policy, and Progressive commenced this proceeding to stay arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the petition. We affirm.
Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313(1)(a) provides, inter alia, that “ [e]very notice or acknowledgement of termination * * * sent to the insured shall include * * * a statement that proof of financial security is required to be maintained continuously throughout the registration period” (see also, 15 NYCRR 34.6[a]).
It is well established that a notice of cancellation is ineffective unless it is in strict compliance with the requirements of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313(1)(a) (see, Dunn v. Passmore, 228 A.D.2d 472, 644 N.Y.S.2d 283; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Carlough, 132 A.D.2d 553, 517 N.Y.S.2d 281, affd. 70 N.Y.2d 912, 524 N.Y.S.2d 430, 519 N.E.2d 340). Contrary to Progressive's contention, the language employed by Bankers in its notice of cancellation complies with the statutory requirements of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (see, Barile v. Kavanaugh, 67 N.Y.2d 392, 398, 502 N.Y.S.2d 977, 494 N.E.2d 82). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition to permanently stay arbitration.
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: January 29, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)