Peters v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 December 1968 |
| Citation | 58 Misc.2d 738,296 N.Y.S.2d 527 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application for a stay of all Arbitration Proceedings attempted to be had between Kevin PETERS, Claimant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
This is a proceeding to adjudicate the validity of a disclaimer of liability by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The following facts were stipulated to and agreed upon by the attorneys for the claimant and respondent.
On January 14, 1967, claimant Kevin Peters was a passenger in an automobile involved in an accident, which was owned by Ford Motor Company and leased by Command-Lincoln Mercury Corp. to one Edward Cassidy and operated by Cassidy's 17-year old son Gregory, with his knowledge and consent. Claimant was injured and commenced an action for personal injuries against the above named individuals and corporations.
Liberty Mutual Company, the liability carrier for Ford, Command and the Cassidys, disclaimed liability, alleging that Edward Cassidy violated the rental agreement by permitting his 17-year old son to operate the said auto. As a result of the disclaimer, claimant made claim for arbitration and indemnification under the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement of the policy issued by State Farm Mutual, respondent herein, to claimant's mother, Lucille Peters.
Claimant also presented his claim to the insurance carrier covering Edward Cassidy, to wit, Government Employees Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'GEICO)', under its Family Automobile policy and said carrier disclaimed liability on the ground that the auto involved herein is not owned by Edward Cassidy and was operated without the owner's permission.
The arbitration proceeding has been stayed pending adjudication of the validity of liberty Mutual's liability disclaimer. Ford Motor Company, Command-Lincoln Mercury Corp., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and GEICO are not parties to the instant proceeding.
Claimant introduced into evidence a specimen of GEICO's Family Auto policy and respondent introduced into evidence the lease agreement and a specimen of Liberty Mutual's auto policy. The lease agreement contains the following language: 'No person under 25 years of age is permitted to drive this car.' Liberty Mutual's policy contains no such restrictive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co.
...car was being used for the intended purpose, though it was operated contrary to the agreement. See also Peters v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 58 Misc.2d 738, 296 N.Y.S.2d 527 (Sup.Ct.1968) (coverage applied to driver under age 25 who operated the vehicle contrary to the car rental agreement).......
-
Location Auto Leasing Corp. v. Lembo Corp.
...lessee's permission, notwithstanding plaintiff's lease restriction against operators under 25 years of age, Matter of Peters (State Farm Mut.), 58 Misc.2d 738, 296 N.Y.S.2d 527; see Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. World Wide Rent-a-Car, Supra, or at least, nothing in the present papers establish......
-
Grouby v. Abdallah
... ... The standard insurance policy of the State of Washington or the State of New York, or The Standard ... g., Peters v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 58 Misc.2d 738, 296 ... ...
-
Sternberg v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...340 N.Y.S.2d 550 ... 72 Misc.2d 655 ... Charles W. STERNBERG and State Farm Mutual Automobile ... Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, ... LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et ... 28 A.D.2d 286, 284 N.Y.S.2d 807.') Matter of Peters (State Farm Mutual), 58 Misc.2d 738, 296 N.Y.S.2d 527 ... The Court determines ... ...