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: EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, petitioner-respondent, v. Eric ROSARIO, respondent-respondent; Gregory Persak, et al., additional respondents, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, additional respondent-appellant, Caliber One, additional respondent-respondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.H.O.), dated April 28, 2003, which, upon finding its disclaimer to be void, granted the petition and permanently stayed arbitration.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The disputed disclaimer of the appellant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm), pursuant to the “car business” exclusion of its policy (see 11 NYCRR 60-1.1[d][2][i]; National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Progressive Ins. Co., 287 A.D.2d 697, 698, 732 N.Y.S.2d 63; Piliero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 12 A.D.2d 130, 209 N.Y.S.2d 90; Strizik v. Home Indem. Co., 137 Misc.2d 12, 519 N.Y.S.2d 600), was issued solely to Mario Biondo, the permissive operator of the vehicle of its insured, Gregory Persak. No disclaimer was issued to the insured. Moreover, Caliber One, which insured Biondo's employer, RAD Parking, Inc., acknowledged that its policy applied to Biondo, although allegedly only as “excess” to State Farm's purported coverage.
Accordingly, irrespective of the validity of State Farm's disclaimer, both the owner and the operator of the alleged tortfeasors' vehicle were insured at the time of the accident. Since that was the only relevant issue that needed to be decided in this proceeding, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition and permanently stayed the 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: June 14, 2004
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)