May 17, 2004

Matter of Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v GE Auto & Home Assur. (2004 NY Slip Op 04013)

Headnote

An accident occurred in a vehicle that a renter had rented from Avis, and the renter had a policy with GE Auto and Home. After paying no-fault benefits to the occupants, Avis submitted contribution claims against GE to compulsory arbitration, which were denied. Avis then petitioned to vacate the awards, and the Supreme Court denied the petition and confirmed the awards. The Appellate Division held that, as between the no-fault insurer of a rental vehicle and the no-fault insurer of a nondriver renter, the rental vehicle's insurer is the primary source of no-fault benefits. The order was affirmed.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v GE Auto & Home Assur. (2004 NY Slip Op 04013)

Matter of Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v GE Auto & Home Assur.
2004 NY Slip Op 04013 [7 AD3d 704]
May 17, 2004
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, July 28, 2004


In the Matter of Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., Appellant,
v
GE Auto and Home Assurance, Respondent.

—[*1]

In a proceeding to vacate arbitration awards, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), dated April 10, 2003, which denied the petition and granted the respondent’s cross petition to confirm the awards.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Nural Amin was involved in an accident while operating a vehicle which Nural Zahangir rented from the petitioner, Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. (hereinafter Avis). Zahangir had an insurance policy from GE Auto and Home Assurance (hereinafter GE). After paying no-fault benefits to the occupants of the rented vehicle, Avis submitted claims for contribution from GE to compulsory arbitration, which were denied. Thereafter, Avis brought this proceeding to vacate the arbitration awards.

Avis’ petition was properly denied. As between a no-fault insurer of a rental vehicle and a no-fault insurer of a nondriver renter, the no-fault insurer of the rental vehicle is the primary source of no-fault benefits (see Matter of Sea Ins. Co. [Northbrook Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.], 166 AD2d 327 [1990]). [*2]

Avis’ remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Krausman, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.