Legal Opinion

Ciaramella v. State Farm Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 16, 2000PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and judgment granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting judgment in favor of plaintiff declaring that plaintiff provided timely notice of a supplementary uninsured motorist (SUM) claim and that defendant has a duty to provide coverage for plaintiff. The court should have granted judgment in favor of defendant declaring that defendant has no duty to provide coverage for plaintiff. Although the relevant provision of the insurance policy required plaintiff to give notice of a SUM claim “as soon as…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Metzger v. . &198tna Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
  2. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. MancusoNew York Court of Appeals · 1999

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. C.C.R. Realty of Dutchess, Inc. v. New York Central Mutual Fire InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
  2. Katz v. American Mayflower Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  3. Choung v. Allstate InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  4. In re the Arbitration between Allstate Insurance & EarlAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
  5. In re the Arbitration between State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance & HernandezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API