May 17, 2004

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

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-avis-rent-a-car-sys-inc-v-ge-auto-home-assur-2004-ny-slip-op-04013/

Court
Appellate Division, Second Department
Decided
May 17, 2004
Citation
2004 NY Slip Op 04013 ยท 7 AD3d 704
Posture
Article 75 petition
Issues
Priority, other coverage CPLR article 75 (arbitration awards)
Cite as
Matter of Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. v GE Auto & Home Assur., 7 AD3d 704 (2d Dept 2004)

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 rental vehicle's no-fault insurer is the primary source of benefits as against the no-fault insurer of a nondriver renter. After paying benefits to occupants injured in the rented vehicle, the petitioning insurer sought contribution from the renter's insurer in compulsory arbitration. The claims were denied. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order denying the petition to vacate and granting the respondent insurer's cross petition to confirm the awards, following Matter of Sea Ins. Co. The petitioning insurer's remaining contention was unpreserved.

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.

Similar decisions