Federal Ins. Co. v. Stechman
| Decision Date | 05 April 1993 |
| Citation | 192 A.D.2d 531,595 N.Y.S.2d 815 |
| Parties | In the Matter of FEDERAL INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. Myron STECHMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bertram Herman, P.C., East Norwich, for appellant.
Thomas Torto, Brooklyn (Bruce S. Reznick, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, LAWRENCE and O'BRIEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay the arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.), entered January 24, 1991, which dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the respondent was not required to obtain its consent before settling the underlying action, as there was no provision in the policy requiring such consent (cf., Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Donath, 164 A.D.2d 889, 559 N.Y.S.2d 567; Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lopez, 163 A.D.2d 390, 558 N.Y.S.2d 118; Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Parker, 160 A.D.2d 882, 554 N.Y.S.2d 315).
In addition, we are of the view that the language of the release sufficiently preserved the insurer's subrogation rights (see, Weinberg v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 379, 477 N.Y.S.2d 99, 465 N.E.2d 819).
We also reject the petitioner's contention that the respondent's failure to notify it of the pending lawsuit against the tortfeasor constituted a breach of a condition of coverage. The disputed policy provision relied on by the petitioner states:
This provision is not clearly designated as a condition precedent to arbitration (cf., Brown v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Ind. Corp., 33 A.D.2d 804, 307 N.Y.S.2d 633), and the term "legal papers" is not defined with sufficient clarity to avoid fatal ambiguity (cf., Security Mut. Ins. Co. of New York v. Acker-Fitzsimons, 31 N.Y.2d 436, 439, 340 N.Y.S.2d 902, 293 N.E.2d 76; see also, Allstate Insurance Co. v. Noorhassan, 158 A.D.2d 638, 551 N.Y.S.2d 942).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Indem. Co., Application of
...express consent to the settlement with the tort-feasor. As the policy herein required consent (cf., Federal Ins. Co. v. Stechman, 192 A.D.2d 531, 595 N.Y.S.2d 815 (2d Dept.1993), Mr. Levy's failure to obtain such consent constituted a breach of a condition of his policy (see, Continental In......
-
Hartford Ins. Co. v. Buonocore
...was no provision in the policy requiring such consent with respect to underinsured motorist coverage (see, Matter of Federal Ins. Co. v. Stechman, 192 A.D.2d 531, 595 N.Y.S.2d 815). Moreover, we find that the language of the release executed by Buonocore in settling the underlying action ad......
-
American Home Assurance Co. v. Williams
...sufficiently preserved the appellant's subrogation rights (see, Weinberg v Transamerica Ins. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 379; Matter of Federal Ins. Co v Stechman, 192 A.D.2d 531; cf., Wisotsky v Oak Leasing Corp., 212 A.D.2d 527; Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Lopez, 163 A.D.2d The appellant's re......
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Sobiesiuk
...that there is no material distinction between the facts presented in the present case and those presented in Matter of Federal Ins. Co. v. Stechman, 192 A.D.2d 531, 595 N.Y.S.2d 815. In Matter of Federal Ins. Co. v. Stechman (supra) this court construed the terms of an insurance policy whic......