March 25, 2011

Matter of New York Schools Ins. Reciprocal v Armitage (2011 NY Slip Op 02191)

Headnote

The main issue in this case was whether or not the court should grant a permanent stay of arbitration following the denial of a claim for no-fault insurance benefits by the insurance company. The court considered whether the denial of benefits is a dispute involving the insurer's liability to pay first party benefits. The holding of the court was that the Supreme Court properly refused to grant a permanent stay of arbitration, and that the issue of whether the offset for workers' compensation benefits exceeds the monthly limit of first party benefits is a matter for arbitration. The court also rejected the petitioner's contention that it was denied its right to seek a loss-transfer claim from additional proposed respondents.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of New York Schools Ins. Reciprocal v Armitage (2011 NY Slip Op 02191)

Matter of New York Schools Ins. Reciprocal v Armitage

2011 NY Slip Op 02191 [82 AD3d 1628]

March 25, 2011

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, May 11, 2011

In the Matter of New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal, Appellant, v Patricia Armitage, Respondent. Alex Celniker et al., Proposed Additional Respondents.

—[*1] Baxter Smith & Shapiro, P.C., West Seneca (Lauren E. Dillon of counsel), for petitioner-appellant.

Louden Law Firm, P.C., Malta (Michelle Murphy-Louden of counsel), for respondent-respondent Patricia Armitage.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Rose H. Sconiers, J.), entered February 10, 2010. The order denied the petition for a stay of arbitration.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from an order denying its petition seeking a permanent stay of arbitration. Respondent sought arbitration following petitioner’s denial of her claim for no-fault insurance benefits. The propriety of the denial of benefits is a “dispute involving the insurer’s liability to pay first party benefits” (Insurance Law § 5106 [b]), and we therefore conclude that Supreme Court properly refused to grant a permanent stay of arbitration (see generally Ryder Truck Lines v Maiorano, 44 NY2d 364, 368-369 [1978]). Petitioner further contends that the issue whether the offset for workers’ compensation benefits exceeds the monthly limit of first party benefits is not a matter for arbitration. We reject that contention (see Insurance Law § 5102 [a] [2]; see generally § 5106 [b]; Matter of Johnson v Buffalo & Erie County Private Indus. Council, 84 NY2d 13, 18-19 [1994]; Matter of Cady [Aetna Life & Cas. Co.], 96 AD2d 967 [1983], affd 61 NY2d 594 [1984]). Finally, we reject petitioner’s contention that, by refusing to grant a permanent stay of arbitration, the court denied petitioner its right to seek a loss-transfer claim from additional proposed respondents (see generally Matter of Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. [Hanover Ins. Co.], 307 AD2d 40, 42-43 [2003]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Fahey, Carni, Green and Gorski, JJ.