Legal Opinion
Rifkin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 13, 1993PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Howard Miller, J.
It is ordered that the motion for summary judgment is denied, the cross motion for summary judgment granted, and defendant is entitled to judgment declaring that any claim by plaintiff Sharon Rifkin for damages to which she is determined to be entitled under the supplemental uninsured motor*142ist coverage of each of the two policies issued to plaintiff Irene Rifkin by defendant, shall be covered by each policy equally, up to a total maximum coverage of $100,000, with costs and disbursements to defendant.
Plaintiffs bring this action to declare the rights of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Allstate Insurance v. LibowAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
- In re the Arbitration between Richard Spychalski & Continental Insurance CompaniesNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- In re the Arbitration between Spychalski & Continental InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- Di Stasi v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Morris v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1987
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- In re Arbitration between State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance & HillAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- Allstate Insurance v. NicolosiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996