State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trapanotto
| Decision Date | 09 October 1990 |
| Parties | In the Matter of STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Victoria C. TRAPANOTTO, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Scalzi & Nofi, Melville, for appellant.
Raiskin, Weiser & Raiskin, New York City (Martin J. Weiser and Claudia Cholst, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and EIBER, BALLETTA and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a proceeding to stay the arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, the petitioner State Farm Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated May 22, 1989, which denied the application.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The respondent Victoria C. Trapanotto was injured in an automobile accident which occurred on July 5, 1986. She subsequently settled her claim against the owner of the adverse vehicle, Richard C. Schultz. The release issued to Mr. Schultz specifically reserved Ms. Trapanotto's right to "pursue a pending claim with State Farm Insurance companies [sic] for additional damages pursuant to an underinsured motorist endorsement". In December 1988, Ms. Trapanotto demanded arbitration of her underinsured motorist claim against the appellant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter State Farm). This appeal follows the Supreme Court's denial of State Farm's application for a permanent stay of that arbitration.
We note that Ms. Trapanotto did obtain State Farm's written consent to her settlement with Mr. Schultz. There is thus no merit to the argument that coverage was forfeited pursuant to the exclusionary clause contained in the subject insurance policy which requires written consent (cf., Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lopez, 163 A.D.2d 390, 558 N.Y.S.2d 118 [2d Dept., 1990]; Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Ins. Co. v. Parker, 160 A.D.2d 882, 554 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2d Dept., 1990]; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Taglianetti, 122 A.D.2d 40, 504 N.Y.S.2d 476).
Second, we reject the argument that Ms. Trapanotto violated whatever obligation she may have had to preserve State Farm's right to sue Mr. Schultz in a potential subrogation action. The Court of Appeals has held that a release issued in favor of a third-party tortfeasor which specifically reserves the insured's right to pursue a claim against his insurer generally encompasses a reservation of the insurer's right to pursue a claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Indem. Co., Application of
...his insurance may be read to preserve the insurer's rights in a subsequent subrogation action. (see, State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trapanotto, 166 A.D.2d 537, 538, 560 N.Y.S.2d 818). All the same, Trapanotto involved a claimant who had obtained her insurer's express consent to the settlement ......
-
Smith v. Williams
... ... of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation dated July 13, ... ...
-
Hartford Ins. Co. v. Buonocore
...by Buonocore in settling the underlying action adequately protected Hartford's subrogation rights (see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trapanotto, 166 A.D.2d 537, 560 N.Y.S.2d 818). Accordingly, Hartford's petition to stay the demand for arbitration of the claim for underinsured moto......
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. Finnerty
...of the insurer's right to subrogation (see, Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Erie Ry. Co., 73 N.Y. 399; Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trapanotto, 166 A.D.2d 537, 560 N.Y.S.2d 818). Moreover, defendant's post-answer motion to dismiss based upon the defenses of waiver, release and Statute......