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: Integon National Insurance Company, petitioner-respondent, v. Michael Montagna, respondent, National Liability and Fire Insurance Company, et al., respondents-respondents, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al., respondents- appellants; et al., additional respondents.
Argued-December 1, 2009
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company appeals and Diamond State Insurance Company separately appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 18, 2008, which granted the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the petitioner-respondent, payable by the respondents-appellants.
After the petitioner, Integon National Insurance Company (hereinafter Integon) established, prima facie, that the respondents Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter Liberty) and Diamond State Insurance Company (hereinafter Diamond) insured the vehicle that was involved in the subject accident, the burden shifted to Liberty and Diamond to establish a lack of coverage or a timely and valid disclaimer of coverage (see Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Gibson, 62 AD3d 804; Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mazyck, 48 AD3d 580, 580-581; Matter of Mercury Ins. Group v. Ocana, 46 AD3d 561, 562; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Berger, 47 AD3d 708, 710; Matter of Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co. v Galluzzo, 16 AD3d 692, 693; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 15 AD3d 399, 400; Eveready Ins. Co. v. Blackett, 148 A.D.2d 413, 414). Although Liberty came forward with rebuttal proof showing that its policy did not cover the vehicle, Integon presented additional proof of insurance which overcame the rebuttal proof (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Yeglinski, 79 A.D.2d 1029, 1030; Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. v Machado, 28 AD3d 569, 570-571; see also Pierre v Providence Washington Ins. Co., 99 N.Y.2d 222, 228-229; 49 CFR 387.15). Accordingly, the petition to permanently stay arbitration of the uninsured motorist claim was properly granted (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Mazyck, 48 AD3d at 580-581; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Berger, 47 AD3d at 711; Matter of Progressive Northwestern Ins. Co. v Galluzzo, 16 AD3d at 693; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 15 AD3d at 400).
The appellants' remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2008-10402 (Index No. 19964 /05)
Decided: January 05, 2010
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)