State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Hardina
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Prior to the demand for arbitration, respondent failed to *487advise petitioner of the offer to settle the underlying action and to seek petitioner’s consent to settle. Respondent also has not shown that petitioner’s right of subrogation would be preserved under the settlement agreement. Therefore, she has not satisfied the conditions precedent to arbitration (cf., Matter of Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. [King], 198 AD2d 421) and, accordingly, the petition to stay arbitration was properly granted. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
3Cited by3 opinions
- Atlantic Mutual Insurance v. CooperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- In re the Arbitration between Transportation Insurance & PecoraroAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Phoenix Insurance v. KantlisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005