Allstate Ins. Co. v. Dinizulu

Decision Date12 July 2012
Docket NumberNo. 2011–884QC.,2011–884QC.
Citation2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51340,36 Misc.3d 134,957 N.Y.S.2d 263
PartiesALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY as Subrogee of Dhanraj Siewdass and Jaintree Siewdass, Respondent, v. Abena K. DINIZULU, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREPresent: PESCE, P.J., WESTON and RIOS, JJ.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Jodi Orlow, J.), entered February 10, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied the branch of defendant's motion seeking to compel plaintiff's subrogors to appear for physical examinations.

ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, without costs, the branch of defendant's motion seeking to compel plaintiff's subrogors to appear for physical examinations is granted, and the physical examinations shall be held within 60 days of the date of this decision and order, at such time and place to be specified in a written notice by defendant of not less than 10 days, or at such other time and place as the parties may agree upon.

In this subrogation action to recover uninsured motorist benefits paid to plaintiff's subrogors following a 2006 accident involving defendant's vehicle, plaintiff alleged in its complaint that each of its subrogors had sustained a “serious injury” as a result of the accident. After plaintiff's subrogors failed to appear for physical examinations that had been scheduled by defendant, defendant moved to, among other things, compel plaintiff's subrogors to appear for physical examinations. Defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied that branch of defendant's motion.

While an insurer which has become subrogated to its insured's rights has the benefit of its insured's rights, it is also subject to any defenses that could be raised against its insured had the insured himself brought the action against the defendant ( see 1–3 New Appleman New York Insurance Law § 3.05 [2d ed] ). Plaintiff alleged in its complaint that each of its subrogors had sustained a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 and plaintiff, in its appellate brief, admits that its subrogors had been compensated for their pain and suffering. As plaintiff's subrogors were not entitled to recover uninsured motorist benefits for non-economic loss in the absence of a serious injury ( seeInsurance Law § 3420[f][1] ), defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT