Sagona v. State Farm Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 August 1995 |
| Citation | 630 N.Y.S.2d 352,218 A.D.2d 660 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Charles SAGONA, et al., Respondents, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Martin, Fallon & Mulle, Huntington (Larry M. Shaw, of counsel), for appellant.
William R. Johnson, Forest Hills (Abraham Hecht, of counsel), for respondents.
Before O'BRIEN, J.P., and RITTER, COPERTINO and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to confirm an arbitration award, State Farm Insurance Company appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.), dated February 9, 1993, which confirmed separate awards of $100,000 to each petitioner and, (2) as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated July 5, 1994, as, upon, in effect, granting reargument, adhered to its original determination.
ORDERED that the petitioners are awarded one bill of costs.
The petitioner Charles Sagona was injured in an automobile accident, and his wife was killed. He sought to recover benefits on behalf of himself and his wife's estate from their insurer, the respondent State Farm Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm). In December 1992 following an arbitration hearing, the petitioners were awarded $100,000 each. A year after the awards were issued, State Farm informed the petitioners' attorney by letter dated December 21, 1993, that the awards exceeded the limits of the policy. The petitioners then commenced this proceeding to confirm the arbitration awards.
In opposition to the petition, State Farm submitted an affirmation from its attorney in which it was alleged that the award to Charles Sagona exceeded the $10,000 per person/$20,000 per accident policy limit for uninsured motorist benefits and that the award to his wife's estate exceeded the $50,000 statutory limit (see, Insurance Law § 3420[f][1] ). State Farm did not produce a copy of the policy or an affidavit from an employee but merely produced a copy of the December 21, 1993, letter to the petitioners' attorney. The Supreme Court confirmed the awards. Although the court acknowledged that an arbitrator may not grant an award in excess of the applicable policy limits, it concluded that State Farm failed to submit sufficient proof of the policy limits.
State Farm moved for reargument and renewal and annexed a purported copy of the petitioners' insurance policy. In response, the petitioners submitted an affidavit from an attorney who averred that State Farm made no objection during the arbitration hearing when the petitioner Charles Sagona stated that the policy limits for this claim were $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The Supreme Court denied the motion on the ground, inter alia, that State Farm should have presented proof of the policy limits at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.
...Matter of Brijmohan v. State Farm Ins. Co., 92 N.Y.2d 821, 677 N.Y.S.2d 55, 699 N.E.2d 414 ; Matter of Sagona v. State Farm Ins. Co., 218 A.D.2d 660, 630 N.Y.S.2d 352 ; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Silver, 225 A.D.2d 690, 639 N.Y.S.2d 485 ).” (Spears v. New York City Transit Authority, 26......
-
Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v.
...Brijmohan v. State Farm Ins. Co., 92 NY2d 821, 677 N.Y.S.2d 55, 699 N.E.2d 414; Matter of Sagona v. State Farm Ins. Co., 218 AD2d 660, 630 N.Y.S.2d 352; Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v. Silver, 225 AD2d 690, 639 N.Y.S.2d 485)." ( Spears v. New York City Transit Authority, 262 AD2d 493, 692 N.......
-
Spears v. New York City Transit Authority
......State Farm Ins. Co., 92 N.Y.2d 821, 677 N.Y.S.2d 55, 699 N.E.2d 414; Matter of Sagona v. State Farm Ins. Co., 218 A.D.2d 660, 630 N.Y.S.2d 352; Matter of ......
-
State Farm Ins. Co. v. Credle
...... CPLR 7511 provides that an arbitration award should be vacated where an arbitrator exceeds the limits of his powers and the rights of a party are prejudiced. An award made in excess of the contractual limits of an insurance policy is an action in excess of authority (see, Sagona v. State Farm Insurance Co., 218 A.D.2d 660, 661, 630 N.Y.S.2d 352, 353; Mele v. General Accident Insurance Co., 198 A.D.2d 731, 732, 604 N.Y.S.2d 619). In this case, an award of $10,000 was made to each of three claimants, occupants of an automobile with uninsured motorist coverage, while the ......