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: Eveready Insurance Company, appellant, v. Nicole Smith, et al., respondents.
Argued-November 22, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated April 13, 2010, which, after a framed-issue hearing, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On July 18, 2006, the respondents Nicole Smith, Heaven Purnell, and Brenda Rouse, allegedly sustained personal injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident. They served a demand for arbitration on the petitioner, seeking uninsured motor vehicle benefits pursuant to a Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Endorsement. The petitioner filed the instant petition to permanently stay the arbitration, alleging that the “offending motor vehicle” was insured on the date of the accident, since New York Marine and General Insurance Company (hereinafter New York Marine), the insurer of the offending motor vehicle, did not file a notice of termination regarding the subject liability policy with the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter the Commissioner).
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, New York Marine was not required to file a notice of termination with the Commissioner. According to the version of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313(2) which was in effect on the date of the accident and at the time of the termination of the policy, an insurer was not required to file a notice of termination with the Commissioner due to a nonrenewal of a policy of liability insurance (see Vehicle and Traffic Law former § 313[2]; see also Lloyd v Government Empls. Ins. Co., 204 A.D.2d 407). To the extent that regulation contained in 15 NYCRR 34.3(4) provides to the contrary, it is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the version of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313(2) applicable to this case (see Seittelman v. Sabol, 91 N.Y.2d 618, 626-627; cf. Raffellini v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 9 NY3d 196).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding to permanently stay arbitration.
SKELOS, J.P., ENG, HALL and LOTT, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
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: 2010-05986 (Index No. 17575 /08)
Decided: December 21, 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)