June 8, 2016

Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Garcia (2016 NY Slip Op 04421)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-progressive-cas-ins-co-v-garcia-2016-ny-slip-op04421/

Court
Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided
June 8, 2016
Citation
2016 NY Slip Op 04421 · 140 AD3d 886
Posture
Other motion
Outcome
Provider prevailed
Issues
CPLR article 75 (arbitration awards) SUM / uninsured motorist Timeliness and preclusion
Cite as
Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Garcia, 140 AD3d 886 (2d Dept 2016)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The insurer's petition to stay uninsured motorist arbitration was time-barred because its ATV objection fell within CPLR 7503 (c). The insurer commenced the proceeding more than 20 days after service of the claimants' notices of intention to arbitrate. Its contention that the accident involved an all-terrain vehicle concerned compliance with policy conditions, rather than the absence of an agreement to arbitrate, and therefore did not escape the statutory deadline. The notices complied with CPLR 7503 (c), and the insurer failed to substantiate its claim that service at a no-fault processing address was deceptive or prevented a timely challenge. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding as time-barred, favoring the claimants; the remaining contentions were not reached.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Garcia (2016 NY Slip Op 04421)

Matter of Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v Garcia
2016 NY Slip Op 04421 [140 AD3d 886]
June 8, 2016
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, August 3, 2016

[*1]

 In the Matter of Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Respondent,
v
Francisco Garcia et al., Appellants.

Cannon & Acosta, LLP, Huntington Station, NY (June Redecker of counsel), for appellants.

Adams, Hanson, Rego & Kaplan, Yonkers, NY (Michael A. Zarkower of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim, Francisco Garcia and Jaime Torres appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Santorelli, J.), dated May 28, 2015, which, upon finding that the proceeding had been timely commenced, granted the petition to permanently stay arbitration.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed as time-barred.

“ ’CPLR 7503 (c) requires that an application to stay arbitration be made within 20 days after service of a notice of intention to arbitrate’ ” (Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Urban, 78 AD3d 1064, 1065 [2010], quoting Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Zacharoudis, 65 AD3d 1353, 1353-1354 [2009]; see Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Singh, 6 AD3d 441, 443 [2004]). Unless a party makes an application for a stay of arbitration within the 20-day period, CPLR 7503 (c) precludes it from seeking a judicial determination on its objections to arbitration (see Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v Williams, 50 AD3d 807, 808 [2008]; Matter of Standard Fire Ins. Co. v Mouchette, 47 AD3d 636 [2008]). “As an exception to this rule, however, a motion to stay arbitration may be entertained when its basis is that the parties never agreed to arbitrate” (Matter of CNA Ins. Co. v Carsley, 243 AD2d 474, 475 [1997] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis and citations omitted]; see Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.], 56 NY2d 264, 266 [1982]; Matter of Progressive Specialty Ins. Co. v Louis, 122 AD3d 637, 638 [2014]; Matter of AIU Ins. Co. v Orellana, 18 AD3d 652 [2005]). Here, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Progressive) commenced this proceeding to permanently stay arbitration more than 20 days after service upon it by the appellants, Francisco Garcia and Jaime Torres, of their notices of intention to arbitrate.

Contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, Progressive’s contention that arbitration should be stayed on the ground that the appellants’ accident did not involve an adverse “motor vehicle,” but rather an all-terrain vehicle (see Matter of Progressive Northeastern Ins. Co. v Scalamandre, 51 AD3d 932, 933 [2008]), does not relate to whether the parties had an agreement to arbitrate. Rather, that issue relates to whether certain conditions of the insurance contract were [*2]complied with so as to entitle the appellants to uninsured motorist benefits, and therefore, had to be asserted within the 20-day time limit set forth in CPLR 7503 (c) (see Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Urban, 78 AD3d at 1066; Matter of AIU Ins. Co. v Orellana, 18 AD3d 652 [2005]).

Moreover, Progressive failed to establish that the appellants’ notices of intention to arbitrate were deceptive and intended to prevent it from timely commencing the proceeding (see Matter of Standard Fire Ins. Co. v Mouchette, 47 AD3d 636 [2008]; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Singh, 6 AD3d at 444). The appellants’ notices of intention to arbitrate complied with the requirements of CPLR 7503 (c), and the petitioner failed to proffer an affidavit by someone with personal knowledge to support its contention that the appellants’ service of the notices of intention to arbitrate upon a certain post office box address used by Progressive to process no-fault claims prevented it from timely contesting the issue of arbitrability (see Matter of Standard Fire Ins. Co. v Mouchette, 47 AD3d at 636; Matter of Nationwide Ins. Co. v Singh, 6 AD3d at 444). Indeed, Progressive submitted a copy of a letter from its own claims representative to the appellants’ counsel acknowledging receipt of the appellants’ notices well within the 20-day period.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding as time-barred.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

Similar decisions