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: USAA Casualty Insurance Company, petitioner-respondent, v. Lisa Cook, appellant; Pacific Specialty Insurance Company, et al., proposed additional respondents.
Argued—April 7, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay the arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Palmieri, J.), dated March 2, 2010, which granted the petition.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
“The Cook's [sic] New York Automobile Policy does not provide [underinsured motorist benefits] § hereinafter UMŒ coverage for this loss. Mr. Cook was driving a motorcycle that he owned and insured elsewhere. The New York Automobile Policy, SUM, Exclusions states, ‘The UIM coverage does not apply: To bodily injury incurred while occupying a motor vehicle owned by that insured if such motor vehicle is not insured for at least the minimum bodily injury liability limits and UM limits required by law by the policy under which a claim is made․’ Therefore, we must deny coverage for this loss.”
Thereafter, the appellant made a demand for arbitration of the claimed UM benefits under the USAA policy, and USAA commenced this proceeding to permanently stay the arbitration. The Supreme Court granted the petition, and we affirm.
Contrary to the appellant's contention on appeal, the disclaimer notice and “the policy language in question was not ambiguous and [USAA] is entitled to have the provisions it relied on to disclaim coverage enforced” (Matter of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 35 AD3d 486, 487; see General Acc. Ins. Group v. Cirucci, 46 N.Y.2d 862, 864; Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Polyakov, 74 AD3d 820; Matter of Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v Reid, 22 AD3d 127). It is also undisputed that USAA sent timely notice of its disclaimer (see St. Charles Hosp. & Rehabilitation Ctr. v Royal Globe Ins. Co., 18 AD3d 735; Kramer v. Government Empls. Ins. Co., 269 A.D.2d 567; Can–Am Roofing v. American States Ins. Co., 229 A.D.2d 973). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition to permanently stay the arbitration (see Matter of USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v Hughes, 35 AD3d 486).
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic.
SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and MILLER, 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: 2010–03309 (Index No. 21174 /09)
Decided: May 03, 2011
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)