Pajak v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp.
| Decision Date | 15 November 1989 |
| Citation | 155 A.D.2d 912,547 N.Y.S.2d 735 |
| Parties | Melissa PAJAK, Appellant, v. MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jeffrey Freedman, Buffalo, for appellant.
Schaus & Schaus by Richard Schaus, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, BOOMER, LAWTON and DAVIS, JJ.
Petitioner Melissa Pajak, while riding her bicycle on July 4, 1986, was struck by a vehicle owned by William Anderhalt. The police report indicated that the vehicle was insured by The Hartford. On January 19, 1987, The Hartford notified petitioner that it had been advised by Anderhalt's attorney that it was not Anderhalt's carrier and was closing its file. On September 25, 1987 petitioner filed a notice of intention to make a claim with Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp. (MVAIC). On March 30, 1988 The Hartford disclaimed coverage because of Anderhalt's failure to cooperate. MVAIC, on May 11, 1988, rejected petitioner's claim as untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of petitioner's receipt of the January 19th letter. Petitioner thereafter commenced the present proceeding to challenge MVAIC's rejection of her notice of intention to file a claim.
The trial court dismissed the petition because petitioner's notice of intention to file a claim was not filed within 90 days of Hartford's January 19, 1987 letter, which disclaimed or denied coverage (see, Insurance Law § 5208[a][3][A][ii]. This was error. The January 19th letter was insufficient to constitute a disclaimer or denial of coverage because it merely recounts another's statement (see, Application of Broderick, 31 Misc.2d 350, 221 N.Y.S.2d 122) and fails to provide with the requisite degree of specificity the grounds for the carrier's action (see, General Acc. Ins. Group v. Cirucci, 46 N.Y.2d 862, 864, 414 N.Y.S.2d 512, 387 N.E.2d 223; Cassara v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 144 A.D.2d 974, 534 N.Y.S.2d 277).
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, petition reinstated and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County for further proceeding.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norstar Bank v. Pickard and Anderson
...... intent to violate the usury laws (Kin-Ark Corp. v. Boyles, 593 F.2d 361, 364 [10th Cir]; ......
-
Wilcox v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp.
...was predicated (see, General Acc. Ins. Group v. Cirucci, 46 N.Y.2d 862, 864, 414 N.Y.S.2d 512, 387 N.E.2d 223; Pajak v. MVAIC, 155 A.D.2d 912, 547 N.Y.S.2d 735). Finally, we reject petitioner's contention that the filing requirements of Insurance Law § 5208 should not be given the effect of......
-
Alexander v. Motor Vehicle Acc. Indemnification Corp.
...reasonable efforts" to ascertain insurance coverage (see, Insurance Law former § 5208[a][3][A][ii]; [a][3][B]; cf., Pajak v. MVAIC, 155 A.D.2d 912, 547 N.Y.S.2d 735). Sain v. Forrest, 130 A.D.2d 733, 515 N.Y.S.2d 835, relied upon by Supreme Court in denying petitioner's motion, is not appli......
-
In the Matter of Waleed Gettes v. Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp..
...Wilcox v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 187 A.D.2d 909, 912, 590 N.Y.S.2d 314; cf. [85 A.D.3d 1030] Pajak v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 155 A.D.2d 912, 913, 547 N.Y.S.2d 735), and that the petitioner timely filed a notice of intention to make a claim against the appellant. Accordingly, the......