December 30, 2004

Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Celebucki) (2004 NY Slip Op 09750)

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/matter-of-state-farm-mut-auto-ins-co-celebucki-2004-ny-slip-op-09750/

Court
Appellate Division, Third Department
Decided
December 30, 2004
Citation
2004 NY Slip Op 09750 · 13 AD3d 1023
Posture
Other motion
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
SUM / uninsured motorist Timeliness and preclusion
Cite as
Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Celebucki), 13 AD3d 1023 (3d 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 injured claimant failed to establish timely written notice of the SUM claim because counsel's mailing assertion lacked supporting proof. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed an order granting the insurer's CPLR 7503 petition to permanently stay arbitration. The policy required notice as soon as practicable, and the insurer disclaimed after receiving notice approximately three and one-half years after the accident. The claimants asserted that counsel had sent an earlier letter, but the insurer's claims representative found no such letter in the file. Counsel's unsubstantiated assertion did not establish mailing, and the claimants supplied no evidence of regular office practices ensuring proper addressing or mailing that would support a presumption of receipt.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Celebucki) (2004 NY Slip Op 09750)

Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Celebucki)
2004 NY Slip Op 09750 [13 AD3d 1023]
December 30, 2004
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, February 23, 2005
In the Matter of the Arbitration between State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Respondent, and Geraldine Celebucki et al., Appellants.

—[*1]

Mercure, J.P. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Reilly, Jr., J.), entered December 5, 2003 in Schenectady County, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7503 to stay arbitration between the parties.

After allegedly sustaining injuries in a May 1998 automobile accident, respondent Geraldine Celebucki filed a claim for no-fault insurance benefits with petitioner in July 1998. Celebucki thereafter notified petitioner of her intent to file an additional claim for supplementary underinsured motorist (hereinafter SUM) coverage pursuant to the terms of her existing automobile insurance policy with petitioner. In February 2002, petitioner disclaimed coverage of the SUM claim on the ground that Celebucki had failed to notify it of her intent to seek such benefits until November 2001, approximately 3½ years after the date of the accident. Contending that petitioner had actually received such notice in August 1998, respondents filed a demand for arbitration. Supreme Court granted petitioner’s subsequent CPLR 7503 petition to permanently stay arbitration, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. In our view, Supreme Court properly held that Celebucki failed to provide petitioner with notice of her SUM claim “[a]s soon as practicable,” a requirement of her SUM [*2]policy (see generally Matter of Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v Mancuso, 93 NY2d 487 [1999]). Although respondents contend that such notice was provided by letter from respondents’ counsel in August 1998, petitioner presented the affidavits of a claims representative who stated that no such letter was located in Celebucki’s file. Indeed, there is no evidence in the record, apart from the unsubstantiated assertion of respondents’ counsel that he “did cause to execute and forward” said letter, to validate respondents’ claim. Notably, respondents failed to offer any proof of regular mailing procedures and office practices “geared to ensure the proper addressing or mailing of this letter,” thus entitling them to a rebuttable presumption of receipt by petitioner (Matter of Phoenix Ins. Co. v Tasch, 306 AD2d 288, 288 [2003]; see Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829-830 [1978]). Accordingly, we agree with Supreme Court that timely written notice of the SUM claim was never provided and arbitration was properly stayed.

Spain, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Similar decisions