Legal Opinion
Valente v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 27, 1991PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The courts below properly held that the petitioner’s recovery for pain and suffering under the supplemental uninsured motorist endorsement should be reduced by the amount of the workers’ compensation award.
The contract between the parties contains a standard clause which expressly provides for such an "offset,” and the contract has been approved by the Commissioner of Insurance. Unlike the minimum coverage mandated by law (Insurance Law *896§ 3420 [f] [1]), supplemental coverage is optional and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fox v. Atlantic Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- In re the Arbitration between Napolitano & Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1967
3Cited by4 opinions
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. GarrigaMississippi Supreme Court · 1994
- MATTER OF VALENTE v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
- Williams v. Casualty Reciprocal ExchangeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996
- Berns Custom Homes, Inc. v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2014